August children worst performers in education system? Now, really?!

[walkwithme]

Our 3rd daughter is due on the cusp of August/September.

There has been a lot of press about children's entry age into the school system and school performance. (for example www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-154907600

It is claimed that August children (the youngest) do worse in their academic career than September kids (the oldest who are supposedly and kind of obviously more mature, confident, developed, able to concentrate because they are a year older).

But, doesn't it also depend on the general character of the child, birth order, support at home? i.e. August kids who have older siblings for example may be possibly more suitable for young age entry.. just asking ;)

I am having an elective cesarian due to health issues, so I guess I could possibly try and push the date to either August or September.

Please let me know your experience / opinions..

Our experience chimes in with ProvincialLady and 1950s Housewife. We moved from a system where DD was youngest in the year to a system where DD was oldest in the year.

When DD was youngest in the year she was average, perhaps a little immature...

When DD was oldest in the year she was exceptional, responsible...

It makes a huge difference.

You can find a detailed research report here

Speaking as a teacher, SENCo, and mother of a 31 August child, there are of course exceptions to the norm. My DD is now in Y10 and has already passed two GCSE maths modules (June of Y9, A, March of Y10, A), physics (Jan Y10, A*) and chemistry (Jan Y10, A). She isn't even 15 yet. Last week she sat the second chemistry paper (which she apparently finished in a third of the available time, despite still recovering from a fractured elbow) and has two history papers after half term. She started Reception unable to read anything but her name.

She has smart parents though (well, her dad's a knob, but that's another story).

My dd3 is a July baby and one of the youngest in her class.

I had real concerns about her starting school, she seemed so immature (well, she was only just turned 4, of course she was immature!) and not ready at all.

She has really surprised me though and has sailed through reception with no problem, other than lots of bumps and bruises (she falls over loads in the afternoon as she just gets so tired) and her teacher could set her watch by her because as soon as it gets to 2.00pm she starts to whine and ask when mummy is going to pick her up because she's tired. Bless.

I have no worries academically though.

One thing that really gets on dd's nerves though, is having to wait so long for her birthday - she hates being 4 when all of her friends have turned 5 ...her birthday is taking foreverrrrrr
I can imagine when it comes to turning 17 (driving lessons) 18 (legal age for pub) etc it will be quite annoying.

If I had the choice, I would choose a September birthday. The difference between the oldest and the youngest in the class is quite remarkable. The older children seem so much more ready.

This thread makes for interesting reading.

I'm in North America. Here, although children start the school year in September as they do in Britain, the cut-off for eligibility is Jan 1 e.g. all kids in one class are born in the same calendar year. All children start school (Junior Kindergarten) in the year they turn 4. DS is a December baby, so will be starting school when he is three. There is only one entry a year (September), no staggered entry as in Britain. I have investigated holding him back a year as I think this is far too early, but it seems it is not the done thing...

Statistically the results are true but every child is different. I used to teach primary and many summer born children were high ability. It really didn't make a difference with some children. I wouldn't worry about it personally.

But you need to remember that many things have changed. My DD was due to start school 11 years ago, and at that stage, most schools in our area did not admit until the term after the child was 5 so their achievement depended much more on the type of input they had received at home or in nursery. When I started teaching reception we had 3 points of entry - so a child would come into school the term they were due to have their 5th birthday. If you set aside the argument about whether it's "right" to be in school so young, under the old system, summer born children were disadvantaged from the start because they did not have the teaching input that the older children had. Since having a single point of entry, I've noticed that there is much less of a pattern - in the past 2 years for example, it's been the spring born children in my class that have done less well - but that has been a function of the personalities involved rather than their age. Last year my summer born boys were the top performers!

What matters most is that the date a child is born is the one to optimise their health. It isn't something many parents can chose and after two to three years of "trying" the birth date is way less important than conceiving.

DH is August - took a first from an Oxbridge.
I am July - was always in the top third at grammar school
DD is May and top average - and glad she wasn't September as she was the biggest throughout primary with a May birthday!!
DS is December - now come to think of it DS is the highest achieving and cleverest of all of us.

DS2 - was May - I would have given anything to have kept him in there until August and I think that puts the whole silly argument into perspective.

Statisticaly the studies are well founded.

However, IME of summer born premmies, you can overcome the inbuilt prejudice by keeping on the ball.
You just have to make sure that everyone (including teachers and other parents take it on board).

If you do this, the impact will evaporate over time. If you don't then from very early people will consider your DC slow, as opposed to young, and adjust their expectations accordingly. This is utterly corrosive.

DD is end of August born and in reception. Academically, she is top of her class and described as excelling in all areas by her teacher and her TA actually calls her a 'wee genius'

Physically, though, she is behind. By her own admission she is 'slowest' at running and she lacks the physical build and dexterity that her older peers have. She does gymnastics and ballet, which is building her confidence and ability in her physical skills and I am confident the gap will close.

I was worried that there would be a void between DD and the older peers and that she would be struggling in the early years at school, but those fears have been allayed and I do think she would have ended up coasting/bored had she been born a few days later.

Personally, I think that the research stands to reason; across a large cross-section of society it is obvious that, broadly speaking, the autumn born and older children will be ahead of the summer born children. BUT, I do think there are other factors (such as FSM, level of parental input, SEN to name a few), which have a much greater effect on academic achievement, and the time of year they were born is only a small factor in this.

"Our experience chimes in with ProvincialLady and 1950s Housewife. We moved from a system where DD was youngest in the year to a system where DD was oldest in the year. When DD was youngest in the year she was average, perhaps a little immature...

When DD was oldest in the year she was exceptional, responsible..."

Yes, I would tend to agree with this. My DD is November born, which makes her end-of-year in the French system, where the intake is a calendar year. In addition she is bilingual and English, not French, is her stronger language (though she is native-speaker level in both). Of course that creates situations in which she is a little disadvantaged. Having said that, she is very mature for 7.6 and when I compare her to her two cousins in England who are in Y2, I think she would be bored to tears if she were in class with them.

I'm an August birthday, was the youngest in my year and have 3 degrees from top universities It's statistically true but doesn't mean it will apply to every August born child. And you can help them keep up by reading with them at home etc.

Some it won't matter for, but I think you do notice the difference in KS1 (so early years through the infants). Let's face it a year is a massive difference when they're that little. Most will close the gap, so it matters less the older they get. If I had a choice, I'd say I'd go for Sept. birth rather than August, simply because that means they can stay away from school for a year longer.

My late July DD is 7 and she really IS a year behind her peers in some ways....she looks younger, smaller and she is not as confdent. BUT she is in the top 6% for three subjects....and the bottom for some others....it does depend on the child....I think all children have at least ONE strength...something they can shine at.

I'm was born in June and, whilst I was chugging along quite happily with the work, found the older girls in the class very complicated. I missed the more sophisticated behavioural cues that they shared that made me seem clumsy and feel inferior. I never really 'got' them until I was much older when the nuances of their reign of terror were more readable (and, importantly, avoidable).

I know this is anecdotal, but a friend of mine's DD is an August girl. She's a month older than another friend's boy, but as he was born in September, he's in the year below. So the girl's already doing AS levels, he's just doing his GCSE's. I wouldn't say he's any brighter but he's predicted hugely better grades than her. She'll do really well I'm sure and is predicted to go to University, but has always found it harder to keep up. Over the years, we've all wondered if she would have found the academic side easier if she'd been born a month later. Who knows, but it's interesting and seems to fit the general trend.

It doesn't matter what the trend is or what the sats say it is about you and your child.

Are you going to be playing and reading with dc before school?

I'd like to see the stats of full term babies vs prem babies and schooling.

Both of my kids are summer birthdays June and July and I love the fact they have summer birthdays. It makes absolutely no difference to intelligence, they can still be bright but are written off as less intelligent because they are younger. My son will be 4 next month and his best friend will be 4 on 2nd September so she gets an extra year at pre school but she is so ready for school her parents wish she had been born on her due date of 30th August so she could go to school this september. Out of choice I would always choose to have a baby in the summer as so much easier getting out and about with a newborn in the warmer months!!! I dont read into the intelligence thing at all!!

I've looked after two little girls with August 31st birthdays. One thrived in reception, one struggled.

If I had the choice I'd go for the Septmeber birthday.

And I would also learn how to spell September correctly

If I had a choice I would go for the September birthday. A year makes a huge difference in children's development when they're that young.

Yes, plenty of August born children do well at school, but you can't know in advance how mature and developed your child will be when it comes to starting school. If she's August born and on the immature side, the system's not usually flexible enough to let you hold her back a year.
And as others have said, a summer born child can be just as bright as a September child, but be labelled as slow simply because they're younger and not as ready to start school.

If you have a choice I would definitely go for September birthday. IMO, it would be absolutely mad not to.

sashh

Premature babies tend to do less well at school than full term babies. Generally, the earlier a baby is born, the more problems it's likely to have at school.

I've linked two articles below, first one is about babies born before 26 weeks, second one is about babies born between 32 and 36 weeks.

Early babies struggle at school

Premature babies do less well at school