do you think summer born children are really disadvantaged??

[6031769]

just thinking wholly from the point of view of my ds (selfish i know). He is May born, i only work part time 3 days a week so my mum provided childcare as she is retired. When he was 2 i sent him a local playschool a couple of mornings a week but he couldn't go to the preschool attached to the school he will be going to until he got his funding term after he was 3, then he went there for the three terms. Anyway best decision i ever made to send him there, amazing preschool but if he had been born in autumn term he would have got 5 terms at his preschool instead of only 3.

DS didn't get on too well at his first playschool (won't go into details) but loved his 2nd preschool and has come on in leaps and bounds, i just wish he'd been allowed to stay for extra two terms so he'd got 5 terms same as autumn born children, school there is going to be so many more children

Sparkling - but that was to do with the individuals in question, not their birthdays. If nobody shows you how to write your name, then you're unlikely to be able to do so. But there's no reason not to teach your child to write their name before they start school, and every reason to, you know, do that. Some people don't 'because s/he's too young' but that's their choice rather than a predetermined thing. If a parent treats a child as though they can't possibly do some things, many children will believe they can't possibly do those things. It's a self fulfilling prediction. DD2's reception teacher (who had already taught DD1 and DS, and was aware that summer born Dd1 was by some margin the most academically advanced child in her year) was surprised that DD2 entered school in the same academic shape as Dd1 had - I was surprised that she'd expected anything else. And when I talked to her about it, her only rationale for her preconceptions was that DD2 was the youngest in the year. And that's just silly.

It matters statistically and in reality.

My late summer born is fine academically but considered "terrible" at sports. This baffles me a bit as she is good in absolute terms - swimming badges, stamina for long bike rides etc. But she is a head shorter than half her class and with a sergeant major of a sports teacher, is relegated to the side lines in group sports.

It makes me cross as learning to love sports is important.

Well believe me Rabbit I did try and get DS to write his name before he went to school and so did his pre-school, many, many times. Nothing to do with his birthday, I just wanted him to be able to-but it didn't happen. I didn't just not bother.

A few years ago my local village school entered children in the county cross country and came first! There were objections from some of the other schools because the child who came first was in Y2 and was half the size of the 11 year olds she was running against. Their objections were overruled. In her case it had nothing to do with size or age just natual ability ...

Not sure where sports fit in with it all. DS has always been sporty. Can't remember if there was a difference back in First School. Too long ago.

nonicknamesseemavailable> My DS has learnt an amazing amount at his pre school in the last year (which is the main reason i started this thread as i suppose i am disappointed he has to leave so early when he is just getting on so well and i only wish he could have got the chance to stay there longer). his pre school they could only go to from when they got the funding so he was there 3 terms the max time. He was at a different pre school before that took from 2 and he never really liked it and they thought he might be autistic (there were some things you could say were signs but with hignsight i don't think they ever really understood him). Anyway then got HV involved and she said she thought he was not being stimulated enough at preschool and advised me to send him to another preschool when he got funding which i did (this one only take funded kids) and he came on in leaps and bounds, more than i could ever have expected. Just wish he'd had the chance to go there for 5 terms and hoping school isn't going to be a step backwards.

Sport fits in with it because younger children are often considered less physically developed yet that isn't always true ... Just as it's not always true that younger children are less socially/ emotionally or academically.

There is a good reason why physical development is a prime area of the EYFS and reading/writing/maths aren't.

Oh right, I never got that impression I don't think WRT sports. Difficult to say really with only 15 to a class. The first Sports Day would have been 10ish months after the start of term in YR too they had all changed by then.

My 31st Aug son is very good at sport and I mean incredibly good at any sport he tries.

Incredibly good at football (just finished yr4 and was the only kid from yr4 to play for school footie team which is usually reserved for yr6 - although he looks tiny next to his team mates!)

He has been doing karate for just under a year & his instructor raves about him.

Tbh it is good for his confidence (as this is something he lacks in & is v sensitive) especially to be good at something that his younger sister isn't.

I would say that he was definitely more imature than his friend (who has 5th Sept birthday) but the gap isn't so obvious now as it was in year r/yr1 (he has had the same best friend since nursery).

My 30th August DD is up there with the rest of her age group academically but is quite far behind emotionally and socially. She is much more immature than those with birthday's in the first term. For her birthday next week we are heading to Peppa Pig world and a number of kids have teased her with the whole Peppa Pig is for babies thing but she turns 5 as they all turn 6.

I think there is no disputing the statistics, but from my own point of view I think it's much more complex than straight academic achievement. I have a DS who is summer born and now entering Y4. Very early on in reception he 'got' learning and academically has no issues at all, in fact spent the last academic year being taught in the top set of the year above for maths. Innate ability, nothing to do with age, and in many ways it's academically worked in his favour that he's young for year. He also, just because of the way he is, is tall and sporty - so again doesn't tick the classic box of a summer born boy being smaller and weaker. Where it DOES stand out is behaviour. And this is worsened because he is high achieving in academics and sport, and from my perspective is worsening over time not improving. People assume more of him because he is bright and athletic. They assume he is older because he is bright and athletic. I even had his last teacher, who called me in repeatedly about his 'clowning around' and 'daftness' say to me, on his birthday at the end of term, "I had no idea he was the youngest boy in the class, it explains a lot". He has spent a year being told he "needs to grow up", "show more maturity" etc - and in many cases simply hasn't had the emotional maturity to deal with situations where others have lied, or played a situation to their advantage. These are the areas where to me, as his mum, the fact he is summer born sticks out like a sore thumb. If each individual example saw him have 11/12 months more emotional maturity the outcomes of most would have been different. I do feel he's always going to be playing catch up in that department - and that's where self-esteem gets knocked.

As for the PP who talked about a study with twins (I assume identical to make it valid) that just doesn't hold water. If one ID twin starts school earlier than the other because the other has been hospitalised then the advantage/disadvantage is not just to do with when they start school! I have id twins myself - due to health reasons one will always find things harder than the other. One has been disadvantaged from the moment I got twin to twin transfusion syndrome whilst pregnant - a study to compare their abilities/outcomes due to age would be nonsense. One is always going to be able to achieve more, both physically and academically, despite them both having the exact same genetic code. One is always going to be fighting against health issues before they even start with something like academics.

My dd was due on the 4th Sept but was born 5 days early so came at the very end of August. Obviously it was out of my hands. She starts reception this September. She leaves behind in nursery some of her friends who are a few days/weeks younger than her who will start reception next September.
Personally, I am very glad she is starting school this year at just a few days over 4 years old. I think she is ready and that she would be bored in nursery for another year. Time will tell how she does academically but I am not worried. And there is nothing I can do about it anyway. She came when she came! She wanted to be an August baby!!!!

My DS late August. Yes, def so. So much so we took him out of state education, remortgaged and put him in private a year below.

Mine is a June born boy and he's done ok. He was exceeding in the majority of the ELGs and met the others. In addition to being young in the year we also discovered in march that he has significant problems with his eyes (a +8 and a +9) and he has only just had his full strength prescription - they worked up to it as it was so strong. The glasses have made a huge difference to him. He wasn't struggling before but now he is much more willing to read and write.
Otoh I do wonder if he was a September born how much better he would have done.

In general (and as a primary teacher myself) I do think that summer born children are disadvantaged but of course there are always exceptions.

I have been a primary school teacher for many years. Every now and then for my own interest I have a look at the spread of achievement by month born. Last time it came out as a fair spread of the oldest were at the top of the SATs results, as were many of the youngest! In the lower group there was also a fair spread of older and younger. Perhaps by the time they get into years 2 and 3 it has evened out as others suggest if indeed there is any real disadvantage; I was a summer born baby as was my husband - I have two post grad degrees; he won a scholarship to one of the top state schools in the country.

DSs birthday is this week
he'd have been a RIGHT PITA if he'd been born a week later and thus a year lowe at school

It depends on the child.

The statistics and common sense say that, as children learn things all the time, the ones who have had longer to learn things will, on average, know more. And the more you know, the more knowledge you can build on top of it, and so on.

I would imagine a younger child would be less disadvantaged now than they would have been when I was at school because differentiation is much better now each class has a classroom assistant and is limited in size.

And of course there will always be younger children who are 'ahead', and older children who are 'behind'.

op - my dc are both May babies.

DS turned out very bright and top of class, so no dis-advantage to report here.

My only irk was with the primary school which was small and split the year groups by age, so my dc were mainly in a class with younger children, rather than with the older half of the year group who worked with the year group above.
Saying that, there were parents of winter born dc who moaned about their dc never being the oldest in the class and they'd rather their dc were with the summer ones!!!! Just goes to show that you can never please everyone!
Also, the winter born dc's parents moaned about how their dc were bored at pre-school and ready for school before they were allowed to go. Maybe all children should start school at 4 1/2!!!!!! But of course that would be a logistical impossibility!!!

My DS is late August and starts school in 2 weeks. I am worried and asked the LEA to defer which I got a flat no to. The school didn't appear to understand why I was concerned, which concerns me too!

I am not so worried about the academic side as I believe with help and encouragement he will get it but he is fairly socially immature and I do worry about this a lot. Unfortunately he has inherited my shyness and slight lack of self esteem and this can have a long lasting effect. It took me until my late 20s to have a decent amount of confidence.

I really think an extra year of nursery would have benefited him. That said, I don't want to make too many excuses as sometimes he will say he can't do something when it is lack of confidence holding him back.

It's such a shame parents can't have a say in all this I.e make it easier to defer, it would improve the stats for educational results for a start IMHO.

you don't have to send your child to school until the term after they turn 5.
But of course they miss the reception year that way.
I would think that every school has experience with socially immature children at age 4.

gutz - which stats do you mean?

Yes, summer born children are disadvantaged everything else being equal.

The bit in bold is very important and is what all the analysis is based on.

It doesn't mean that every summer born child will do badly nor that every autumn born child will do well.

People who say that their summer born has done well need to think how that very same child would have achieved if they had been the oldest in the year. Except in the very exceptional cases where a summer born is so ahead of their peers that being the oldest in the year would have lead to a worse outcome (perhaps due to not being stretched or not fitting in with their peers). I would imagine that this is very unusual situation.

The analysis isn't based on everything else being equal idril that's the problem. The data doesn't look at how much time the child has actually spent in school/home influence/health/IQ/quality of teaching/etc etc etc. It focuses on one thing - month of birth!

Sorry mrz but I disagree and I work very closely with the people who do the analysis that has been most widely used in this debate (IFS).

They use complex econometric techniques to control for as many factors as possible. The problem is that is is very difficult to control for absolutely everything and so the analysis is as only as good at the data allows it to be but I can say for sure that time spent in school, various measures of home circumstance, health, quality of teaching were controlled for.

I'm not saying that it's perfect but it's certainly not true to say that it focuses on one thing and doesn't control for anything else.

So they know if a child missed 2 weeks every year /term for a family holiday? (a factor shown to impact) or if they had an accident/illness which caused them to miss a significant period of time in school? or if parents were made redundant or split up? or if the child played truant? or the family were ever homeless? or if there was unreported domestic violence in the home? if the parents actually read with the child every night or just claimed to? if the child did their own homework/course or copied or it was done by a parent?

How do they judge retrospectively if teaching was good or bad? whose opinion the child's the parents?

There is simply no way to know ...

They know some of these things.

You've probably heard that there is a database called the National Pupil database which measures measures school outcomes. This data is matched onto various cohort studies which follow children and their families from birth into adulthood and measure some of the things you mention. Parents and their children are given a detailed individual and family interview which collects information that researchers can use in their analysis.

As I said, some of the measures are far from perfect and the authors themselves are continually trying to update and improve their methods but any factors that are measured are controlled for.

The good news is that although the disadvantage (in terms of exam outcomes) persists to age 16, there is no evidence to suggest that the disadvantage persists into adulthood in terms of earnings.