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

[ACheesePuff]

I'm not making allowances for my dd, FWIW she is one of the highest achieving in her class, with innate intelligence and good support. But compared to the autumn borns who also have innate intelligence and good support there is a difference. I am trying to compare like for like. Yes, being summer born isn't the biggest disadvantage they can have.

[ChocolateWombat]

How on earth do you know the difference is due to the age factor? Surely there are children a couple of years or more older, who she is brighter than? Surely there are children more than a couple of years younger who are brighter than she is.....or however you measure success.
I really can't see how at such a late age, you can be saying the age factor is making a difference to her, when we encounter young adults/adults of a wide range of ages with differing ability ties and levels of success that are due to factors beyond age.
I am genuinely interested to know why you think it is down to age. Can you give examples. Why don't you think theses differences aren't explained by intelligence or exposure to activities/support which helps build success. Could it not just be that some of these other people who are 'different' are so, due to factors not due to age. Surely she also has friends of her own age and younger who are also more mature/clever or whatever....and those in Her class who are older but less successful....ie not age related. We all know adults and young adults who are and are not mature. Age often has little to do with it.

[ACheesePuff]

The changes in my dd from a year ago and the things she has learnt are significant, go figure.

[YeGodsAndLittleFishes]

Ok, yes it is a disadvantage but only if they had to sit theit GCSEs ages 5! They don't. Otherwise every teacher in the world would be making sure they didnt have summer born children. It doesn't mattwr wherher they learn what numbers are when they are 3 or 6, whether they learn to read independently at 5 or 8, in the long run , as long as they are learning to love learning.

[ACheesePuff]

YeGods That's the whole point though that people seem to be missing, it IS still a disadvantage when sitting GCSE's, the statistics show this! There is a bound to be a difference between a child who is still 15, and one who is nearer to 17 which is the age they complete their GCSE's . August born children will have left school 3 months before they even turn 16.

[ChocolateWombat]

ACheesepuff, it is NOT a disadvantage for every child. There is a difference between what statistics say about the average experience of a statistical sample of many thousands and the individual experience.
So yes, taking a whole school year group, summer borns will perform at a lower level. However, looking at individuals many autumn borns will perform at a low level and many summer born children at a high level. Both these things can be true at the same time.
Therefore, just because your child is young in the year, does not mean they automatically have less chance of success. They could be the highest performer in their class, using every possible measure of success. This is why I still don't understand why when talking about your individual child, you are so sure that age is the key factor determining success. You don't clearly say what measure of success you are using, or why it is that you are sure the causes are age related.
Whilst the statistics speak for themselves about the broad impact when looking at a sample of thousands, our children are all individuals. Their month of birth is one small factor impacting on their educational outcomes, but their natural intelligence and the support they receive is more significant. We do well to remember this, rather than to take a pessimistic view that they are doomed by their month of birth, from the very beginning.

[ChocolateWombat]

'There is bound to be a difference between a child who is still 15 and one who is nearer 17 when they complete their GCSEs'.
This is true for the broad cohort of thousands. However your child could be 15 and be the top performer in the year, beating all of those almost 17 year olds. The almost 17 year old may be bottom. If your child is not the top performer, age is extremely unlikely to be the only or most importantly factor.

[ACheesePuff]

I'm not saying that all summer borns will underperform related to all autumn borns, but all other things being equal they probably will do less well. My child will probably do really well, she is bright and we support her well, however, compared to autumn borns who we have known since she was tiny, who also are intelligent and have good support, she isn't quite reaching the same academic levels or developmental levels in terms of co-ordination, etc. Consideriing 5 out of six on the 'top table' in her class are sept/oct birthdays this seems to be supporting my theory, while the next group which my daughter is part of all have birthdays in the second half of the year. All the children in the top two groups are the children with 'more academic' type families who value education and support their children. Age does seem to be one of the more influential factors alongside parental ones. In the rest of the class there are a mix of ages, with some autumn borns who are performing less well, but when you look at family background these children are disadvantaged in other ways.
I know lots about the class as I work in school.

[ChocolateWombat]

For some reason I thought your child was a teenager. When children are younger, the impact of age is more pronounced, but less so by the end of school, although if you look at figures for a national year group, there is still a difference, but it is so important to distinguish between the impacts of thousands of children and those on individual classses and individuals, rather than seeing the figures as applying to every individual.
The point is that 'all other things are not equal' and it is those things that mostly explain differences very quickly. Natural intelligence is clearly not equal.....some children are more clever than others and this quickly is apparent and supersedes month of birth for most children. Earlier on you said 'there is bound to be a difference' when comparing older and younger children taking GCSEs in the same year group. You are over-emphasising the impact of age in the year group - there is no BOUND to, about it at all. Again, you are making the assumption that for most children age is a very important determining factor. It is not nearly as important as you think when looking at individual children, just statistically when looking at much larger numbers.
I don't know how young your child is. If you are talking about reception, then yes, being almost a year older might play quite a significant role in who is in the top groups, but even then, in most schools you won't see the top table totally dominated by Sept/Oct birthdays. You really can't draw many conclusions from just the class of your daughter. As an earlier primary teacher poster said, by the end of Infants/start of KS2 the groups had shaken up and ability was much more the determining factor than age. I don't know if your DD is still in KS1 or has moved into KS2, but the further on she is, the less significant age will be.
And just out of interest, have you ever discussed the fact she is a young one in the class, or allowed her to hear you discuss that with other parents, or in fact even had that discussion out of the hearing of her? Are you limiting her/justifying something to yourself? It really doesn't help either of you. She has the potential she has and will be perfectly able to be as good as the autumn borns......if she has enough natural ability and support from home. I don't know her natural ability or level of support. If she isn't top, it is unlikely to be purely down to month of birth. I guess many parents like to emphasise month of birth, as understandably they don't want to see lack of natural ability or the level of support as an explanation for not being top. However, it is the more likely explanation.
Don't decide your child can't be the best because of her birth month, nor let her think that. The world is her oyster and she and you need to see that, rather than seeing her as somehow limited or disabled by her month of birth.

[ACheesePuff]

So if all children have the potential they have, regardless of age, how do you explain the statistics?

[TalkinPeace]

acheesepuff
as has been said
the statistics are for children who went through KS1 many years ago
they will change as pedagogy has improved

[ACheesePuff]

Only time will tell. I will be very interested to see.

Anyone care to highlight what has changed, other than all children starting Reception n September? I don't see any changes relating to age in my school.

[TalkinPeace]

did you have a child in year R 15 years ago?
ten years ago?
5 years ago?
last year?

snapshots do not work - cohort studies take time

[ChocolateWombat]

Acheese, can you see the difference between statistics which relate to thousands of children and so show the impact of age on AVERAGE and the impact of age on an INDIVIDUAL child? Can you see that very many summer born children will do much better than very many autumn born children? Your summer born child can be one of those many children who do not fit a very broad trend.

I believe the statistics which cover huge numbers of children are true. When the results of tens of thousands of 16 year olds are looked at, on AVERAGE those with autumn birthdays have slightly better results. However, as I have said very many times, there are very many autumn born children who do poorly and very many late August birthdays who go onto top universities. For very many children, month of birth is NOT the key determining factor, but intelligence and exposure to opportunities is. Studies in America have shown that factors such as the age when the mother has her first child (over 30) and educational level of mother are also correlated with high child educational achievement. There are very many factors which have an influence and age is just a small one.
Don't decide your DD is disabled by her month of birth. You sell her short by doing this.

[ChocolateWombat]

And when you say 'only time will tell'.....well it won't really. Your DD may go onto do extremely well or extremely poorly.....and it won't show anything conclusive about the impact of her month of birth, because there are so many other influencing factors. You will simply never know.
All of our outcomes are products of so many factors....our genetics, the affluence of our parents, where we live, the schools we go to, the wider opportunities we get, our personalities, luck.......the success or failure of any one child really will tell you nothing about the impact of age on them as individuals and looking at a class in an individual school can't tell you much either.
All we know is it makes a difference on a global scale. Yes your child is part of that big picture, but whilst many fit the trend, many don't too. So yes, it maybe statistically true to say your DD has a higher probability of lower performance based on age alone, but it does not mean she WILL do poorly.

If the studies looked further, what would be shown no doubt is that summer borns, from deprived families do poorly. Summer borns from affluent families do as well as or better than autumn borns from deprived families. So what does that tell us about the importance of month of birth?!

[chrome100]

I am one of five. All of us are summer born and I don't think we were disadvantaged. All of us have done well.

[ACheesePuff]

wombat, you just don't seem to understand me. You keep making a point I have already acknowlegded, and agree I with you about age not being the determining factor in success. BUT, as I have tried to illustrate, with ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, being August born is a disadvantage. And don't forget, those statistics are made of INDIVIDUAL children.

And 'the time will tell' comment was aimed at Talkinpeace, and not about MY dd, but about all children.

I am talking about statistics now, not my daughter, those statistics are made up of individual children.

[Doublethecuddles]

Interesting debate as I live in Scotland, where age is less if an issue. Maybe it is because we start school at a later age.

[hatsybatsy]

There was an interesting thread on this a while ago.

While we can't argue with the stats that overall summer borns do less well than autumn borns (and boys worse than girls), there was one interesting article which described how some summer born children are influenced by their experience in nursery and reception. Being bottom of the class and struggling against peers who are 25% older than them can stir a sense of determination and motivation is some summer borns.

Certainly that has been my experience - I have a September born ds who is very complacent and doesn't work hard (but still does ok) and a very hard working diligent July born dd (who is currently doing very well).

The key factor for me though is that if you dc comes from a stable, loving and supportive background where education is valued and progress encouraged, then this must count for a great deal - overriding any statistical risk?

[Bumpsadaisie]

My immediate thoughts on this are that while it may be true nationally on a micro scale it often isn't - e.g. in my DDs reception class the summer born children happened to be the ones who progressed fastest in reading and writing.

The other thing is "disadvantaged in what??" And at what point? It does stand to reason that younger children may be slower to get themselves to be "school shaped". Eg my DD on her YR report did very well on the academic side. However she was playing catch up on things like physical confidence and listening/attention. If my DD is tired she just switches off and she isn't old enough yet to know that you must try NOT to switch off.