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?

I'm trying to picture my year 9, high-attaining, June-born DS (6'3" with a moustache) in year 8 alongside 12 year olds...

Nope. It has nothing to do with disabilities or anything like that. The Government's code on this is clear that parents do not need a "reason" to request the deferral. The reason is simply that they'd only be just 4 when starting school and that is reason enough: the reason the option to defer was introduced was because of the huge body of evidence showing that it is on average very detrimental to start school so early. It has nothing to do with "sharp elbows", it is an option available to every parent of a summerborn child in England now, just like it has been for winter born children in Scotland for many years, for exactly the same reasons.

Do not underestimate the potential of boredom.
Unless you are lucky with a teacher that provides your son with additional challenging work, he will get very bored at school and that wouldn't make for a good experience.
Also, although he is bright now, you will be amazed how many much, much brighter kids come out by the time he is 16-18 years old.
Probably better he struggles a tiny bit now and then from a younger age to develop resilience and the desire to improve through work as opposed to sailing through the younger years and possibly get overwhelmed when real competition comes along.
I cannot stress enough how absolutely bright some other children are when starting university. A real shock to those who always believed they were the brightest in their class or school.
Prepare him for real competition later on in life.

I only read the OP's posts, so sorry if repeating anything. I thought about deferring DD, she was about the same age as your DS when she started, but at the time deferring = skipping reception. My main reason was because she was very very little, her first school uniform was a size 2-3, it just seemed wrong to send her, but at the same time I thought sending her straight to year 1 a year later wouldn't solve the issue so we decided to send her. She kept up with work fine, was never behind her class and eventually overtook most of them. She's not gifted or anything, but she's predicted a full set of A-A*s for GCSEs (we're in Wales, so still letters) in a couple of years' time - so I don't think she could have excelled any better, if it makes sense? If we had been able to hold her back a year and start reception a year later, she would probably be dying of boredom - she's bored now as it is, complaining work is too easy...

😄 OP is the one who seemingly wants their kid to excel, not me! Keep your knickers on!

My point is if they’re gonna excel, they’ll excel. OP may defer their son, but there will be kids born the same month as him who are then in the year above, and excelling. As that seems to matter to her, I thought I’d point it out.

I think culturally in England there hasn't been the option to defer and so most people don't and therefore there are disadvantages to doing it.

In Scotland it has been standard to defer for years and so pretty much all middle class kids defer. There are disadvantages to not deferring, my sister could have been deferred but since she was the youngest in a large family and very advanced at speech my Mum thought she'd be fine. She struggled initially at school although caught up when she was older. This was 40 years ago.

I'd say from the conversations in my Scottish family about deferring and the subsequent outcomes it is actually very hard for parents to predict how their kids will do. Mum felt bad for not deferring for years although DSis did well at school as she got older, whereas another relative didn't want to defer because she thought her child was so bright. The child has now left school and was not academic.

I'm in England and had kids before it was possible to defer, I have an autumn, a winter and a summer baby. The summer baby definitely struggled initially at school, both socially and academically. Massive comparison to the older sibling who was very ready for school and excelled at primary school. As teenagers the summer child has caught up and is now better in some areas than their older sibling (both doing very well though).

So, having experienced both systems I'd say things work better if nobody is allowed to defer unless there are medical reasons (e.g. prematurity taking achild across the line).

@MassiveSalad22 by "excel" I took her to mean him reaching his full potential, academically but also being happy socially etc. Not excel in comparison to others. I think that's a common misconception about this, that deferring is some attempt to compete with other children when it is just parents having the decision of what will be best for their own child's development/ education. When they are an adult nobody will care which school year they were in or be comparing which year they did what, it's not really relevant. It's about what will be best to help that specific child excel/ get the most out of their education, not a competition with other kids!

My DD's friends that she moved up with from nursery to school are just a few weeks younger than her, born when she was meant to be born! Impatient girl who refused to let me put my feet up for a bit on annual leave before she turned up. 😏 There would be a much larger age gap between her and many of the kids in her class if she'd gone to school a year earlier. 🤷🏻‍♀️ What they are doing isn't relevant, my concern was whether it would be best for her to have another year of play and mature more emotionally, which is why all parents of summerborn children now have this option, to they can choose what they think is best for their child, because the Government looked at the undeniable evidence that for most kids starting school at just turned 4 is detrimental.

And @MassiveSalad22 I can assure you my knickers are firmly on. 😆😆

I'm trying to picture my year 9, high-attaining, June-born DS (6'3" with a moustache) in year 8 alongside 12 year olds.

Why, does your school select by height? I doubt there's many 6'3" 13 year olds in either year 8 or year 9 in most schools so he must stand out quite a lot already.

Tbh it would be far better to change the UK education system so that school doesn't start until 6/7, like many of the education systems that have far superior outcomes to ours. In those ones, the variation in age within a cohort has minimal impact, so none of this would be necessary to mitigate it. There is a HUGE difference between a 4 year old and a 5 year old. Whereas 6 or 7, not so much. So starting so early and the effect of being so young compared to others in the group both seem to have a negative impact doing it at 4-5 that wouldn't be an issue at 6-7 when school is developmentally appropriate. But given the Government aren't making any moves to do that, at least now parents in England have the chance to decide for kids who are only just 4 to wait a year if they wish, like they have been able to in Scotland for decades. Nobody gets so cross about it there! 🤣

@Nepmarthiturn OK I get that that's the principal of the thing. But in practice, isn't it true that in England at least it remains a lesser-known tool of those who know how to work the system (the middle classes basically, whose children already have such a leg-up)? And then it just perpetuates those social inequalities?

In practice, any parents I know who have deferred have done so because they have serious reason to believe their children would really struggle starting school at 4. Not because they're brighter but they want them to be considered even brighter!

*principle, sorry

I don't think so. Looking at the deferred entry for summerborns fb group there are a wide range of people from all sorts of backgrounds using the option to defer. Anybody can. For some it's a very obvious choice because their children have additional needs or other problems but many do it simply because it will be better for their child's development, that's the point of the option: parents can choose because there is a lot of evidence that 4 is too young regardless of any additional factors.

The more the misconceptions about it are dispelled and more parents become aware of it, I suspect the more parents will exercise the option. As they do in Scotland and have done for decades. When it becomes more widely known perhaps nurseries/ pre-schools will ensure parents of summerborns are aware of the option in good time so they can plan for it, or LAs will make it more clear on the school application process so more people consider it (some do already - it's just a box to tick on the application form, no convoluted process).

I take your point that up to now because it's only been in place in England for a few years, for very disadvantaged children without engaged parents and more publicity about it, social workers/ Early Help workers suggesting it, nurseries suggesting it, etc, it likely will have been more engaged parents who have exercised the option. But that doesn't make having the option wrong given all the data behind the decision to allow it: rather, that's a reason to encourage more people to consider it and dispell the myths about it. Like on every thread about this there are always people popping up saying "they'll have to skip reception and go straight into year 1" or "they can't get nursery funding until they turn 5" or whatever which are completely wrong.

Should also add that I'm a lone parent with disabilities so hardly the super-privileged myself.

I was quite surprised by the strength of responses on the thread as deferral here doesn't really excite anyone, it happens a lot and no one finds it odd.

That context is quite relevant though. A child of OP's son's age who has friends also deferring and who hasn't spent the last few months thinking he's going to school is in quite a different situation. OP's son will have to be told, "actually you aren't going to school either your friends like you thought. They're all still going, you're going somewhere else and will go to school later on".

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182664/DFE-RR017.pdf

OP, everyone will give you their individual perspective, and over the years I have found MN to be very anti-deferral.

It’s worth reading the actual evidence, rather than anecdotes from people with their own agenda.
Sadly the evidence is not great for summer born kids, especially boys.

over the years I have found MN to be very anti-deferral.

I'm not anti deferral at all to be honest but it's silly to think this is as black and white as statistics show it's beneficial so you should do it.

This child has spent the last few months thinking they are going to school in September. He's a smart child and I think it's important to realise that the impact on him now by changing that and telling him he is instead not going to school like all his friends and will be kept behind a year could be much more damaging long term.

I think you may risk him being bored and are holding him back. I have a late august born and wanted to defer him but the LA wouldn't allow it back then. He has just passed his 11+ and got into a grammar school. He didn't hold him back as he wanted to learn, and I think this is what is all boils down too.

But in practice, isn't it true that in England at least it remains a lesser-known tool of those who know how to work the system (the middle classes basically, whose children already have such a leg-up)? And then it just perpetuates those social inequalities?

I agree with this. Disadvantaged children with disengaged parents won't be deferred. Plus it means an extra year of childcare which not everyone can afford.
I don't think that's a reason to not allow it, or for any individual parent not to do it.
But it does mean that some summer born children from disadvantaged backgrounds and who might benefit from being deferred not only don't get deferred, but end up in classes with even older children as well. You can defer a child born in April, so a child born in August whose parents are unaware of this, or who can't afford it, could end up in a class with children not just a year older, but 16 months older.
But as I said, before I get jumped on, I don't think that's a reason for any individual parent to not defer if they have concerns about their child. It's just a general issue I think that exists in the system.

From what you’ve said I wouldn’t defer him. My DD sounds quite similar though she’s a Feb birthday. She was ready for school shortly after she was 4. She goes in September and she is chomping at the bit to go. I think she’d be devastated if I told her she’d have to wait until her birthday to go.

FWIW my older brother is a late July birthday and had no option to defer. He outstripped his peers academically very early and is still doing so at 40 odd. If they’re going to excel, theyre going to excel.

I was quite surprised by the strength of responses on the thread as deferral here doesn't really excite anyone, it happens a lot and no one finds it odd.

I got the impression from mumsnet that deferral was really common and people were doing their summer born children a disservice not doing it. I’m in a local authority area that grants the deferral requests pretty much as standard.

But of the at least 1/3 of my DD’s reception class (I know there’s definitely at least 10, we’ve been or are going to their birthday parties!) only 1 is deferred and he has significant speech difficulties so seems like it was for a specific reason. I only know of one other child out of my friends/relatives/acquaintances who was deferred and she was born 3 months premature so is with the year group she would have been were that not the case. And we’re in a relatively middle class potentially pushy parent area. “A lot” seems like a stretch, it’s still quite rare IME.

of the at least 1/3 of my DD’s reception class who are summer born*

I'm talking about Scotland in my posts. It certainly does happen a lot here!

(For example, in DD's nursery cohort, which is 3-5, there are 10 kids eligible to start nursery in August. 6 of them are going, with only one of those a Jan or February baby, 3 are Jan/Feb born including my DD and are being deferred and one is Dec born and being deferred. No additional needs I'm aware of for any of the kids, it's just fairly standard and nursery expect that kind of level of deferral when planning spaces).

*eligible to start school, sorry