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?

This is an important point though, I agree. It is late to plan this, you'll need to make a decision asap and speak to the LA/ school if you want to defer and talk to nursery about how to handle this so it doesn't make him upset.

I have a very bright March born and she is very far ahead of her class. Her state school can't or won't properly carer for this so we have to teach her some subjects at home. It would be a disaster if she was in the year below, the gap between her and her peers even wider. My second child is Summer born and not exceptionally bright like her sister but I feel she'll learn better being pushed on with by the older kids. It's not just academics either; the younger kids' behaviour might frustrate them especially in infant school.

My youngest had a due date of 31st August, so he was destined to be either one of the very youngest or very oldest in his school year group. He is academically bright, musical, very sporty and socially adept and was obviously so from an early age.
Had he been born a few days early or on his due date I would have been in the same position as the OP and no doubt people would have been giving me dire warnings about the disservice I would be doing him, how bored and intellectually deprived he would be if forced to be with younger children etc.
Except he was a few days late. He is one of the oldest in his current year group. He would probably have been perfectly ok in the year above if he had been born a few days earlier actually, but I didn't get any choice. There is no provision for Autumn borns to start early in the same way as there is for Summer borns to defer.
Why is this? Well I'm guessing that it is something to do with evidence. There is significant evidence that Summer born children as a population perform less well right through school, especially boys, and anecdotes about super successful individuals born on 31st August don't change that. Were there equally convincing data regarding September born pupils underachieving because they are bored then I would think there would be a reciprocal arrangement. But there isn't. Pupils who are the oldest in the year group are (again, as a population) consistently the higher performers.
If you imagine taking a child who is established where they are now, and moving them back a year then yes, of course the majority would be bored and upset. And I think that is what most people are imagining when they say their Summer born would have been bored if deferred. But that's not what we are talking about here. Starting with a different cohort is totally different.
Of course population statistics do what they say on the tin, and describe populations, not individuals. There is no crystal ball to say whether deferral will benefit any individual child or not. But I am pretty sure that of all the problems in our schools today, feral September borns tearing the place up because they are understimulated and "bored out of their brains" is not a big one. And if they aren't, I can't think of any reason why most children a few weeks older would be. 31st August is an arbitrary line - kids born either side of it are not that different.
Do what you think is best OP. In reality, a bright child will probably be ok either way.

This child established. From what I can gather they are in nursery for school and is expecting to move up with the cohort they are already part of.

So the situation you say we aren’t talking about is what we are talking about

So the situation you say we aren’t talking about is what we are talking about
Not really. Nursery is hardly school. A large number of my DS's friends from Nursery went off to school leaving him to do another year of preschool. He grumbled for a week or so and then, as they tend to do fairly easily at that age, adapted. Like large numbers of September born children do. Nothing magic happens at midnight on August 31st.
Not moving from Nursery at the same time as some of your current friends is completely different to what it would be like to move a year 9 pupil back to year 8 etc, as has been mentioned upthread.

Not really. Nursery is hardly school. A large number of my DS's friends from Nursery went off to school leaving him to do another year of preschool.

Well presumably he knew he wasn't going to school though from the get go. This child still thinks he is moving up with his friends, has presumably had discussions about leaving nursery to go to school and depending on his school some have already begun transition visits.

He's not stupid, moving nursery to go to somewhere called a preschool when his room at nursery is probably already called preschool is going to feel like a step backwards.

I deferred my youngest against recommendation of nursery. No regret at any stage. She is 22 now. I moved her to a different nursery for her a preschool year. Both nursery and school ensured she was challenged. No behaviour issues. Unless I told people noone suspected she had been deferred.

I have a family member who teaches who says she doesn't know anyone who regretted deferring but plenty who regretted not deferring.

What’s the difference?

If you imagine taking a child who is established where they are now, and moving them back a year then yes, of course the majority would be bored and upset

This child will be going to that school. But have to go to a different nursery away from all their friends. Then come back a year below them. Your child may have grumbled. Some children would find that upsetting. Especially if they end up not liking school. My dd is almost 19 and 2 of her closest friends went to the schools nursery with her.

This child is established. Expecting to move with their friends. You said we weren’t talking about a situation where the child is established. We are definitely are.

Feels like you are now adding in extra parameters for you ‘it’s the best choice for everyone’ view of deferring, because you realised that is what we are talking about and you were incorrect.

Yes nothing magic happens on august 31st. The child is still established and friends with these kids. Nothing magic happens when a kid turns 9 and loving them is more upsetting than at 4 or 5.

Your nursery wasn’t like school. Our nursery was just like school. It was at the school and every child moved up into reception.

I don’t think anyone would suggest a March born child should be deferred unless they had SEN.

I disagree. Making a decision on whether or not to defer, based on friendships between 3 year olds, is madness. I don’t think my kids could name a single child they were at nursery with now!
If I asked my DS if he’d like to go back to school in September and re-do year 13, then obviously he’d say no. But if he’d stayed on in nursery after his friends had left, he’d have made new friends within a few weeks.

This child won't be staying the same setting though will they so it's new setting and new friends to then move to the school they thought they were attending last year where they will see those old classmates all a year ahead of them.

Also one again it's not comparable to your child who knew they were not going and it's not going to school just because their friends are it's the fact this child has known they will be going to school with their friends for months and still believes that's what's happening. It's not inconceivable to think they will think they've done something wrong or they are not clever enough to go to school if the op suddenly tells them they are no longer going but all their friends are.

@SeeingSpots i didn’t defer my child as it wasn’t allowed then, but I am certain that at 3 years old he wouldn’t have had any grasp of time and school starting and so on. If he had said “mummy I thought I was going to school when Josh went” I could have replied “no sweetheart, you’re going next year” and he’d have shrugged and carried on playing! There’s no way he’d have worried about whether I thought he was thick!

I think you'd be surprised at what children would know. Why wouldn't he think he's going to school in September when he's been told that for months, probably visited the school and all his friends are also going and will be talking about it? Saying oh no you're going next year after saying you're going to school this year is daft.

Yours might not have worried he wasn't clever enough or that his friends were all smarter but some children, especially switched on ones would absolutely be questioning why they now couldn't go to big school and why they couldn't go when all their friends were still going.

But that wasn’t the point I was addressing.

No one said the decision to defer should solely be based on that.

The point I was addressing which I have quoted, several times, was that the poster said that if a child was established and then moved then it would be upsetting and then said ‘but that’s not what we are talking about’

it is exactly what we are talking about. That was my point. It IS what we are talking about. If you want to start adding things in like ‘oh it’s not established until they are 6 or 7 or 15’ then I think we will all do agree with eachother. But this child is established. Which that poster admitted would be upsetting to move.

This child is 4 and has established friendships within this group and been preparing for school. It’s not the same as the poster whose son was fully aware it would happen.

and my point about nursery was that not all nurseries are the same. Yours wasn’t the same as mine. That’s ok. But just because your kids didn’t establish long term friendships at 4 doesn’t mean all kids don’t. I didn’t. My brother did. We have no idea wether this boy will or won’t. But you pointing out that your child experience was different was my point.

Err, show me where I said it was best for everyone to defer Professor?
What I actually said was
Of course population statistics do what they say on the tin, and describe populations, not individuals. There is no crystal ball to say whether deferral will benefit any individual child or not.
That doesn't sound like "everyone should defer" to me. And I didn't defer entry for any of my children.
The point is, lots of people are claiming that a bright Summer born child will be bored and fail to achieve if deferred. There is, to my knowledge, no statistical evidence to support this assertion, but there is data to demonstrate that a) as a group, children young for the year have demonstrably lower attainment up to and including GCSEs b) the highest attaining cohort tend to be the oldest in the year and c) the difference is more marked in boys than girls.
Given that there is no meaningful difference between children born in late Summer and those born in early Autumn it is wholly illogical to assume that they would react particularly differently to starting school at the same time. If there was a recognised problem with children who are old for a year group there would be the option to start them early. There isn't. In fact it used to be fairly common (my brother was put up a year in the 70s) but it is now considered to be generally a bad idea. The idea that older children under achieve en masse due to boredom just doesn't hold water. The reason people are thinking like this is, on the whole, because they are looking at their own now older, maybe teenage children, and imagining them suddenly transported to the year below.
Thar is not the same thing as the OP's situation. The OP's child is 4 and has not yet started school. He may well be upset at the change - that is a separate issue. 4 year olds get upset about lots of decisions that their parents make for them but they adapt. We have to make lots of parental decisions that involve short term pain for longer term gain and our children don't always appreciate it of course! Being separated from friends would almost certainly be a non issue within weeks. Heavens, it would be ridiculous in most circumstances to make secondary school choices based on friendships, never mind infant school! Any good school or nursery should be able to provide appropriate activities that allow for variation abilities and ages as they will have quite a wide range under normal circumstances. If the OP eventually decides she wants to defer and the nursery/school cannot provide a suitably stimulating environment then I would suggest that she needs to look elsewhere.
The OP should look at the evidence, look at her child, talk to the nursery staff and school and make a decision from there. I have no opinion on what she should do apart from that she should approach the decision logically. With a bright child, a decent school and a supportive home, the likelihood is that he will thrive whichever year group he ends up in anyway.

When my younger DD moved from the Preschool to Reception class at 4, she was the only one not moving within the same school... so they did the whole transition with her, while explaining it would be a different school but same idea. She completely understood she was going to school, but not the school with her friends. 4yos understand a lot!

@SeeingSpots perhaps people should stop propagating the falsehood that children whose parents exercise the option to defer their starts would only do so because they have some kind of "problem" or disability or that it's in some way a negative thing to give a child another year of play as is developmentally appropriate before starting formal education. Then children wouldn't risk being be made to feel crap about it by uninformed people who spout such nonsense or say they have been "held back" when in fact they have just started school with very similarly aged children when they are developmentally ready, as they have done in Scotland for many decades already. The only thing causing a problem is ridiculously backwards ideas about it from people who haven't read and understood the data and research and the reasons why the policy to allow deferral for summerborns was implemented in the first place.

The reality is that cohorts have been expanded now from 12 months long to 15 months long, with some overlap between them, by Government policy. We've had absurd posts on this thread saying it's "immoral". 🤔🤣 We've had people implying deferred children must have SEN, or shouldn't be allowed to defer if they don't. 🙄 All ridiculous. The policy was introduced for a reason; for once we have a Government policy that is evidence-based and people are slating it and then saying it would be a reason children have an unfair advantage (when any summerborn kid can be deferred) or that they will be bullied (only if their parents instill such absurd attitudes into them. And the link posted earlier by a PP actually shows that summerborns are generally more likely to be bullied.... I guess in the absence of parents trying to tell other kids there must be something wrong with them if their start is deferred 😵‍💫😡).

It's Government policy. Things change. It's a normal right that the parent of any summerborn child can now exercise, for good reason. I don't see Scottish kids being traumatised by it. People really need to calm down about it and just accept that policy changes, parents now have an extra choice, they can choose to use it or not. And it's not really for anybody else to have a view on and certainly not imply that a child must be stupid or has been "held back". The parents of summerborn children now have a choice of which cohort to join, and whichever they choose is then their cohort throughout education. It is not the "wrong" one. It's just that the cohorts are now 15 months long and some of them overlap.

Don't do it OP. Your poor child will be really bored by next summer, and if he's a bright boy he will more than hold his own at school. It's not a competition. Even if he's not the most advanced on entry because there are September-born girls (believe me the difference at that age is usually quite marked!) - so what? By the time he's 8 or 9 it won't show at all. To hold him back would be really unkind, especially as he already knows he's going to school in September. Why do you need him to be the brightest in his year? Can't he just be happy and achieving well in line with his age? If there are problems with learning or development, holding back a year can be beneficial, but if there aren't , in my honest opinion it's a strange thing to do.

Well I don’t understand your stance.

You believe it’s only upsetting when a child is established

When it’s pointed out this child is established, it’s not the right type of established

and that because it suited your child. It must suit all. Your child only grumble at that age, so it can’t be upsetting for other peoples children.

It very much comes across that as it was good for your child and your child (in a different situation) was fine. It’s fine for everyone.

Where as most people can see it’s good for some and not for others. And the fact that one child accepted it with nothing more than a grumble, doesn’t mean it’s good for other. And vide versa.

You said if the child is established or can be upsetting and that we were all imaging that situation. No one is imaging it. It is the situation. That was my point. you denying the child can’t possibly be established because of their age, doesn’t make it true. People who put their children in school nurseries and intend the child to go to that school (like op) , do so (usually) so the child is established before reception and make the transition easier. Kids who aren’t going to their school have the transition handled differently so that they understand. Ops son hasn’t had that.

So yes, plenty of people feel children can be established in nursery ready for starting school. You don’t. I disagree.

@Clairebear231 the threads on Mumsnet about this are always full of misinformation and nonsense. If you want to research properly, look at the guidelines, research and data and make an informed choice, join the "Flexible admissions for summerborns" facebook group. There you will get facts and legal rights and details on the process if you decide to go ahead as well as advice from people who actually know about it.

I just want to sort of rephrase my post: I didn’t defer my DD because I didn’t like the options at the time (Y1 entry) but I absolutely would have if she could’ve started in Reception. The fact that being in the right year group worked out exceptionally well is irrelevant, really. I had no indication of how bright or not she was because she was 3.

I'd say it's detrimental to a child to be constantly the brightest in the class unless it's a selective prep school with many very able children.

Kids that go through state school feeling like they are a cut above the rest are often not set up well for secondary. They become insecure when others catch up though grit, determination and reaching developmental milestones.

Interestingly but unsurprisingly many a September born girl is overtaken in terms of height and physical development as well as shining with talents by much younger peers by about year 5 and 6.

I recommend to the op that if her son expects to go to school and is socially able as well as bright he'll absolutely love school. Good luck!

My dd will be 4 yrs and 6 weeks when she starts in September. I debated deferal but ruled it out when considering her progress and that she is actually ready for a change with her peers and her confidence will
Be better met by staying with her peer group.

We just went to the school today for an hours settling session and she loved it. Play doh, dolls houses, getting in line behind the teacher, story time on the mat.

She'll still get cuddles their if she needs them, but I'm glad I made the decision. School also said if any child was particularly struggling the you could arrange short hours or days for
Longer but I'm not concerned about that.

It is your choice - but purely the fact you have to move him anyway would put me off - moving twice in a year could set him back.

I think there is a case for holding back a summer born who is struggling but it seems madness to hold back a bright child. There is a girl in my daughters class who is actually a year older. It’s quite sad now as she is obviously much more mature emotionally and physically than the other year 5s and ready for secondary but has to do another year at primary. I wonder if this was the case you could then skip a year and go straight from year 5 to primary

Well I don’t understand your stance.
No. That is very apparent.