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

You're wrong. See previous post because most of it is still happening right now, which of course is why people are telling you it's happening right now.

BTW it is happening right now.

Still this is English education and we're ever so good at bullshitting, sticking heads in the sand, lurching from one fashionable idiotically simplistic Big Idea[tm] to the next and pretending there are no problems. It's quite ironic how thick education gets.

pique
I have two sumer kids - one end of August
I also have a DH who works in schools of all types all over the country

the data will change

track the data for other countries as well ..... only the narrow minded think its a UK problem

Again I bet it doesn't help that much, just a little improvement maybe.

The extra-UK point is a strawman: I haven't said anything about birthdate effects being unique to the UK, I'm berating our inertia and aversion to doing anything much about anything. I've read lots of research on this over the years and like the latest IFS round-up think age-adjusting results would deliver the most, but that would mean some serious changes at the bean-counting level and it looks like we're too useless to cope with that.

No, I read research form other countries, and it happens in other places too, not just the UK.

At the end of the day, being up to a year older (a quarter of the youngest child's life) cannot but be an advantage in the early stages.

Tbh, whatever the research shows, as parents, our job is the same. We need to recognise that the natural intelligence of the child and our level of support for them over time, can trump the impact of month of birth, over time.
So there is no point fretting as parents, or making excuses for our July/August children.....instead we just need to get on with supporting them fully from the early stages so they are in the best position to access all that education has to offer. Reading to them frequently, helping them with letter and number recognition, showing them how to sit with other children and listen and take turns, showing that when you ask for certain behaviour you expect it and will follow-through........just the stuff that parents of any children,regardless of their month of birth can do to help get their children ready for school.
What schools do about it, is to great extent beyond our control as parents. It would be brilliant if more were done to help the younger ones. And it does sound as if things have improved,if not sufficiently. However, we have children with the months of birth they do, and given that fact, I refuse to allow it to be a disability to my children (because that is the way some parents seem to view it and to treat it, well into the teens) but instead to focus on DOING the things that can make more impact than their month of birth. It is a small influencing factor, given all the things we do have control of,Mao I focus on the things I can influence.

I haven't read the full thread so apologies if I am repeating things. I'm a teacher. I have taught receptioto Upper ks2 for a decade. I can honestly say by ks2 I wouldn't have a clue when a child was born. In reception it made a difference for some children. I taught the most advanced child I've ever taught in reception (she was astonishingly bright) and she was August born. In the same year I had two other summer born children who weren't ready for school. They were completely on track a year later.

He actually could stay at preschool until the term after he is 5 - you could delay his school entry until then and he would still be entitled to his free hours. Not sure if anyone else has said that as haven't read the thread. he might then go into Year 1 rather than Reception though, unless you can persuade the LEA otherwise.

I have so many July and August friends who were much brighter than me at school. It's an absolute myth about Summer babies being disadvantaged. It depends on the parenting in many instances. Perhaps said myth started as an excuse for parents whose Summer babies weren't doing well academically which happens with any child born in any month. I wonder what the Winter babies excuse was too cold when they were born? I am a May baby and I've done pretty well for myself academically speaking. Don't stress about it!

Extra bright DH was September born, extra bright DD was a spring baby (and premmie, but even that hasn't held her back academically) our summer born DD had more problems to overcome. She's got there eventually by developing her own ways of applying academic equivalent plough, sow, water, feed, warmth, harvest and furlough. There's a time and season for everything, but she is usually out of step with everyone else. She hasn't let her age hold her back, and has run with the (year group) pack as far as age appropriate viewing, drinking alcohol etc. is concerned too, which is another thi g to consider with September/August DCs as they get older!

My ds is September born and in primary was the eldest in his year, he's not bright academically but he is mature and confident. If he'd been born a few days earlier I think he'd have been overshadowed much more and he'd be much less confident. In that way, it was worked for him.

Academically, the youngest lad in his year was always the brightest, lol. When they first started school the difference between eldest and youngest was obvious but by young 2/3 the gap had narrowed considerably.

There seems to be a theme here that academically bright children do well when they're the youngest, does that tie in with everyone's experience? Or is it just we're tending to measure outcome in terms of academic success? Then I didn't find being an academically strong September born great for social success either...

Not necessarily (one out of many examples I could give) ... 2 years ago I taught a boy whose birthday was the 31st August and he was far from academic (certainly at the beginning of the year) but he had very good social skills, lots of confidence and perhaps most importantly he was extremely enthusiastic about everything we did in class. The other children liked his sense of fun and enthusiasm (he had lots of friends) he asked great questions, built fantastic models, used his imagination to take the class on a journey to far away places and by the end of the year he was one of the most able (through sheer hard work).

DH and DD2 yes, but not me, I am the runt of an academically achieving (but hard working) litter!

DD, and plenty of other childen I know, was capable, confident, articulate, enthusiastic and born in August. She was more than ready for school. Ditto her September born friends. The ones who were not confident and not ready for school were born at any time of year and definitely less well prepared for starting school. "Summer born" is an excuse to treat these children as "babies" and assume they will be disadvantaged, but children can be "not ready for school" at any birth date. If you feel a child is young for their age, then I think makes sense to do a little more preparation for school rather then worry about it.

We are in Scotland where the cut off is slightly different. My DT were one of the younger in the class, and the first my DS struggled, but has now caught up by the end of P2.
Interested that younger children struggle in sport, as both DC are very able at sport and by far the best swimmers in there class and the year ahead.

Yes they are

As has already been said and cannot be disputed really, on a national,statistical scale, summer born children perform less well academically

That is so spot on. There was a meeting a few years back where a DFE official was nearly heckled off the platform because he suggested factoring out data for summer born children when considering the value add calculations for primary schools was not important. Of course it matters during KS1 and into KS2. I'm not sure if anyone has ever factored out the data regarding GCSE results. Individual cases of very young children excelling over their peers nearly a year older, are just that - individual cases. Data does not lie.

It isn't (and has never been) factored into value added

In the workplace, no-one is ever going to say about an interview candidate 'oh, they are summer born, so I will give them a bit of extra credit'
Whether schools or the educational system have a way of acknowledging the effect,mor including it in progress-measures,we as parents,just need to get on with ensuring our children are as well-prepared for school as we can and as well-supported as we can throughout their educations.
If we have summer borns,mew need to not allow it to be a disability, but to know that their natural intelligence and our efforts really can trump the month of birth. As parents we should focus on the things we can influence. This is not the month of birth (after conception!) or the way schools approach and deal with younger children, but the level of support we give.

Natural intelligence is so important. As someone seemed surprised to work out earlier upthread, bright children do better regardless of month of birth. Weaker children do more poorly regardless of their month of birth. And in the Press, just this week, there were articles about how being middle class gave greater chances of success too. Whether being middle class means children are brighter, because of the genes of their parents, or their parents know how to effectively support their children more, I don't know, but suspect it is a bit of both. Of course, many of these children who go onto do well are summer borns.....and their natural intelligence and level of parental support over rides possible disadvantages of being young in the year.

I guess the real issue is how to deal with children who face multiple disadvantages....they are from poor backgrounds with limited opportunities and educational support at home, they are not naturally bright, and they are summer born. Tbh, I would think being summer born is the least of their disadvantages.

In standardised tests used by some schools the date of birth is taken into account but in national tests there is no allowance for birth month

and as date of birth is no longer permitted on CVs, employers not going to give a flying ....

the soomer parents of school age kids worked out how to get AROUND it rather than obsessing over it, the better

A lot of allowances are made at school/university level that employers just don't have the time, money or resources for. Summer-born employees must be among the very smallest of considerations. In all my time working in HR I have not once heard of an employer making special arrangements or adjustments for those born in July or August!

Many SENs, which are comparatively well-catered for within educational settings, are given short shrift by many employers. I once worked for a sympathetic large company which allocated certain colleagues to proofread the work of their dyslexic colleagues, but they did that out of goodwill and is certainly not as common in smaller organisations with fewer resources. I've heard of colleagues struggle and eventually let go because they just can't do the written or communication aspects quickly or competently enough, even though the intelligence capability is there. Anyway that's for another thread.

I agree with TalkinPeace - the sooner the children adjust and adapt, the better. Everyone has their individual challenges - education and work is never going to be a level playing field.

Allowances are not needed in employment because employees vary in age not just by month of birth but by year of birth and all are adults and fully developed and matured. They will vary in their skills enourmously on year of birth, so month of birth becomes irrelevant when there could be a 10 year age gap between employees. Children in the school system are still developing and being compared directly with other children born in the same academic year, and a year in age makes a difference when you are still growing, as children learn and develop and change so much with a year. The oldest boy in my dds class was walking and talking before my dd was even born. Until they reach adulthood I don't think she can really ever have the same level of skill that he has in certain areas, he's always got a years worth of experience and life over her. Yes on the surface they are similar, but dig deep and the differences are there.

Cheesepuff, you sound exactly like the parents who are still pointing out that their children are summer borns when they are 17, as an explanation for every time they are not top, tallest, sportiest, most popular etc.
Yes, it clearly makes a difference when they are 4 and 5. However, their natural abilities and the level of support they have are far more important.
I really don't like the idea that 'until adulthood she can't have the same level of skill as autumn born child has in certain areas'. I really don't think that is true. You are suggesting that your child has no chance of being as good at certain things as the other child because they are younger. However, very many children who are summer borns will be better than very many autumn borns, using every possible measure of success.
It is true on a global scale that summer borns do less well, but for your individual child, the same does not have to be true. It could be that your child is not as skilful as another in a certain area, but by 18 this really cannot be fully explained in terms of age, as you seem to suggest. It is more likely due to less natural ability in that area, or just less exposure to practice of that skill.
I think summer born children are disadvantaged by parents who take the attitude that their month of birth means they cannot do as well as their older peers. And when parents hold this view, it filters thought to the children too. It is never good for a child to be told or hear their parents telling other adults that little Johnny is disadvantaged by their age......it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

FWIW I have a very late August boy
he was 4 years and one week old when he started school
he is now a hulking teen
I've never given him allowances for being young in his year (apart from in Rugby scrums)
he's doing just fine

more parents need to stop making excuses for their kids in advance of problems being identified