Any parents of summer borns in YR Y1 experiencing unfairness in access to curriculum?

[BromCavMum]

I would like to know if there are other parents out there whose summer born children are in YR or Y1 or even Y2 and are struggling a bit or put at a disadvantage by the pace/level of the curriculum? My DD turned 5 at the end of August. She started school last January with a brilliant attitude toward learning and I have seen her attitude become more and more deflated over the last several months.

She picked up on reading quickly but was only assessed as 'emerging' in literacy for YR. Today, she had 2 quizzes in school (yes--2 in one day). A 10 word spelling test and a math test. She had 20 seconds to complete 7 different equations. She got 4 out of 7 and was disappointed in herself. Although these equations were supplied to us a week ahead it seems to me to be a tough test for a 5 year old. The school is big on testing and streaming. But at this age, when development is a huge variable is this wise? When most of these kids in her class were her age they were not doing math at all and were barely reading. I feel my daughter is expected to work twice as hard to be considered half as good.

If there are other parents out there who have experienced this type of what I consider bordering on discrimination I would truly like to hear your experiences and maybe we can pool some advice on how to approach the schools with this problem.

It is very hard to constantly read on the news how summer born children are 20% less likely to go to university, be well adjusted at school, etc. I think we parents need to discuss how to look out for our young children, because the British education system does not seem up to the task (or interested in the problem).

I eagerly await hearing from you.

My experience of setting in KS1 is that it's done to prioritise support for the children who need more help in achieving expected levels. So I don't see why being in the bottom set is a disadvantage.

In practice I agree it will make teaching easier for many teachers. Unfortunately it has a psychological effect on children. Children in top set are motivated and develop more self believe and higher expectation by teachers and parents alike. Bottom set children I am not as clever as those in middle or top. It is self believe and expectation issue. Once they have that self doubt it is very hard to motivate them to work on the subject/s or even to like school.

which was my point regarding expecting less based purely on month of birth

Do you not think it is demotivating to be asked to complete work which in no way matches your ability? ( either because it is too easy or too hard)

which is why you work on stages not ages

As a teacher of a mixed age class, I couldn't agree more. I have never understood how you can simply look at the age and decide on what is to be taught, you look at the CHILD and then decide!

I don't have a problem with children being put at different ability tables according to the topic of a subject on the day or week. For example some may find 2d / 3d shapes easier other may be better at data or problem solving. So children get moved around. I don't believe children can simply be standardised as just being top at every topic or bottom at every topic. Even when being with friends sometimes it comes up in their conversations at playtime or outside school everyone expect that the bottom group children are not as good as their peers. However top group children developed a more can-do attitude as they believe they are the best. Therefore they are more likely to overcome challenging tasks so they get further ahead all the time.

Children know themselves roughly how they stack up in comparison to their classmates. So for all the yellow / Einstein / Bronte named groups, everyone knows if that actually means top, middle or bottom.

I don't have any groups so don't need group names although I'm now tempted to go with Einstein/Newton/Galileo/Pythagoras/Darwin and see how parents order them in ability

Children develop at different rates and there are other factors such as emotional maturity, self confidence and social skills that also influence a child's rate of progress and not just age and academic ability. It takes some children longer than others to settle at school not to mention coping with the long school day.

IMO there should be an extra year at KS1 to allow sufficient time for children to mature and also more time to master core maths and literacy skills. This would also mean that children would leave primary slightly older and hopefully better equipped academically emotionally to deal with the big bad world of secondary school.

IME, the vast majority of Y6 kids are more than ready to leave primary school by the age of 11.

mrz - yeah, damn those parents who give a toss about how their kids are doing in school. Pesks, the lot of them

If you like AquaCouldron but I was more interested in seeing how they would order the scientists by ability ... as I don't have groups my class it has nothing to do with their kids or did you miss that part of the post

You can know how your child is doing in school, but you don't need to know about other people's.

I can't think of any other area of education research where there's so much consensus in the international research i.e. you can't wish it away with English split-starts.

IIRC it was this year's yet-another-IFS-report that reckoned it was age when tested that is the main culprit, but none of summer-born DD's teachers have ever qualified their report of a level with a mention of her age i.e. "they're level [whatever] which is [ good |middling | bad ] for their age".

Clam - Did I say I needed to know about other people's children?

mrz - oh okay, I see - the hypothetical parents trying to put the hypothetical groups into order was just a hypothetical fun intellectual exercise for them. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No AquaCouldron you still haven't got it [sigh] the parents putting the scientists in order ...There ...Are ... No ....Groups to order. would you do it oldest (in terms of date) first or newest first or best known or some other criteria?

but none of summer-born DD's teachers have ever qualified their report of a level with a mention of her age i.e. "they're level [whatever] which is [ good |middling | bad ] for their age".

Perhaps because we don't think "Oh Miss PiqueABoo is 6years and 4 months so should be a Level 2B+" we think "Oh Miss PiqueABoo is a good level 2 which means she has made excellent progress this year but we still need to work on XYZ to progress further" It's the Government that expects all Year 2 children to be a Level 2B and all Year 6 children to be a Level 4b.

Perhaps more research should be done with regards to levelling and the pros and cons of this for teachers and children. Leveling effectively labels a very young child as top, middle or bottom at a very young age and perhaps it is this that has a greater effect on their success at school than the child's age.

By the way, there seems to be so many knowledgeable teachers or parents following this thread so would some of you give me some tips as how I can support my very demotivated dc1. I ve been trying to resolve her maths confident issue for the last two years. What can I do to help boost her aspirations?

I would see the teacher but focus in on the change in your child's attitude to learning - every good teacher will take that seriously. I would hold back on mentioning the summer-born thing until the teacher mentions it because if she shares the opinions of Mrz you won't change her mind but you don't want to alienate or annoy her because she may be a brilliant teacher and perfectly able to solve this problem. If you say "she's summer born" an opinionated teacher may read that as "this parent thinks birth month explains everything....sigh....". I think your child will need that little bit extra support for a while but I'm sure she will get there in the end. I'm sure you are very positive with your child and will keep that up. Best of luck to you.

Yes as a mother of a summer born DD who is is struggling in year 1 I do find it frustrating. What annoys me is that DD at 5 years and 4 months in Year 1 - has just gone on to red band reading and is considered behind.
..However if she had started reception at 5 with a September birthday and gone onto red band reading at the end of the first term at 5 years and 4 months wouldn't she have been considered slightly ahead or at least average? I do feel that she has now been labled low ability - based only on an arbitrary cut off date of the school year that she is in.

Therefore I feel the children should be judged on their age not left to be compared to children who are nearly a year older than them. I disagree that Autumn born children don't have access to a curriculum as the majority of nurserys and pre-schools (certainly in my area) usually start to do some basic letter/number/phonics work with the older children who are there for longer. I assume many parents of older children will also start doing some more formal work with them. Even if they don't then a 5 year old reception starter has still had a year more of brain development, of hearing language and speech, of seeing numbers, books and letters which will surely give them a better start at school.

They do very obvious streaming in our school and seem to sit on the same ability table for most of the work that they do and I definitely feel DD has been judged. The top table in her class is ALL Autumn born children and although a couple are very bright anyway I think some are just there by virtue of their age. However they are now in a virtuous circle of being told they are clever, having more expected of them and therefore achieving more etc etc. Whereas I feel that DD now feels she does the "easy" work and is not as clever - and although we bolster her up at home I do worry it will affect her confidence and how she sees her academic ability.

@spanieleyes

What the government does with national tests and teachers do when they're educating the child throughout the year are different from what I want to know when teacher is giving me a report i.e. some context telling me where they stand relative to other children.

At these younger ages it turns out that relative to other children with the same birth-month + gender is a much better yardstick then relative to their school year. I suspect relative to something like baby vs. adult teeth ratio or hormone levels would be better still.

However, parents who aren't teachers apparently can't be trusted to consider all the cautions that come with large scale stats and shouldn't think about this stuff too much i.e. here are some levels, but don't worry about those pesky government beans because "I'm content with their progress and the way they are working". I bet most teachers who are parents want more than that and immediately consider whether another teacher's levelling is correct and where it has put their child in the scheme of things.

just thought this may make you feel a little better. My daughter was born on 28th Aug and in those days they had two intakes in school, summer and xmas. She sarted school at the xmas and soon caught up. She is now a doctor so the late start never really affected her x

"I definitely feel DD has been judged." What evidence do you have for that?

"The top table in her class is ALL Autumn born children and although a couple are very bright anyway I think some are just there by virtue of their age." How on earth do you know that?

"they are now in a virtuous circle of being told they are clever" Who by?

For the record, my ds is an August-born and was on the "lower" tables probably until around the end of Year 1. (He began in the January of Reception). By Year 2, he was racing ahead and achieved level 3s across the board, and then level 5s by Year 6. At GCSE he got 13 As and A*s and is on track for similar at A level.

This is not to boast, but to say that, although in the early years it might SEEM as if your child is behind (although not to the teachers, who are experienced enough to know what it's all about), it all levels out by the end of Year 2. Every new teacher (for example in KS2) that takes the class on will plan according to where the children are at that point, not where they were back in Year 1. When I last taught Year 2, I agree that most of the top table were Autumn-borns - and girls too, as it happened. I then happened to teach the same class in Year 6, where the groupings had totally changed and all those little Summer-born boys had come on tremendously and were scattered amongst the more able groups.

It's a bit like complaining about some runners in a long-distance race, starting further back on the inner ring of the track, saying it's unfair. It's organised so they catch up over a period of time, and will eventually "win," or "be placed" according to their innate ability to run. Training and diet help, of course. Silly analogy probably, but you get the point?