Summer-born children starting school. Latest parliamentary research briefings.

[Gruach]

I have no personal interest in this - not even an informed opinion.

But this research briefing just appeared in my email inbox so I thought I'd share it.

Apologies if it's been done to death already.

So, supposing they did have good language skills and a supportive family, you would try to teach a 3 yr old who can't hold a pencil to write? Or you wouldn't try to teach a 4 yr old in reception?

No catkind I wouldn't try to teach a 3 year old with poor fine motor skills to write but I would do lots to improve his fine motor skills so that when he started reception he would have the skills to learn.

If that were so the children with summer birthdays would be doubly disadvantaged wouldn't they baffled?

In nursery we prioritise the prime areas of learning - Speech and Language, Physical development (both fine and gross motor skills) and Personal, Social and Emotional development so that most children start reception ready to learn (of course poor attendance and development delay means some won't be ready ) . We have five children starting reception in nappies (no identified SEN) with three having only a handful of words ... Staff plan for their needs just as they would a child arriving able to read and write

So if the same child was in reception, then you'd also do lots to improve his fine motor skills so that he'd be ready to learn to write in year 1? Seeing as it makes no difference if they're in nursery or reception?

Is the summer born thing actually real though? Or is it just natural variation in child development? You can grab 100 kids born in the same month and they will have wildly different abilities - some years ahead of whatever the 'norm' is supposed to be, and some years behind. And most of it will have been artificially produced by their environment anyway.

It's all very interesting. But looking at month of birth is an indicator of anything is a bit too sausage-machine for me.

It's not all summerborns madwoman, it's statistically speaking on average summerborns do worse academically. The mean of that big spread is slightly lower for summerborns. That doesn't mean individual summerborns will necessarily do better or worse, that may depend on the specific child.

I think it is statistically significant in the 'maths' sense madwoman (as far as I know).

I think it must be rather toxic for a child to grow up knowing that his or her parents believed them to be significantly less competent than their potential classmates. Especially if the parents' decision to defer is based on inaccurate ideas about 4yos in reception sitting still and being taught formally, rather than actual, identifiable additional needs.
DS's Y2 class this year had 7 August borns plus a large number of other summer borns, by far the majority in the class. I'm not sure that defeating their entry would have made much significant difference to how they learned.

It's not possible to know whether a child would need further support in reception if the problem has been identified early and staff have planned accordingly Catkind ... I would expect not since you say he wouldn't require OT input

DS was born on 1st Sept by ELCS. We were given the choice of the Friday before or the Monday (1st) which puts us in something of a pretty unusual position as we effectively had to make this decision before DS was born.

Both myself and DH are very bright - though DH suffers from severe dyslexia which was no picked up on until he was 16 which meant throughout school he had behavioural issues. Both of us are Summer Born ourselves but out performed the majority of our peers.

Which left us with an enormous dilemma.

We personally don't think that academic considerations are going to be his biggest hurdle given his background. If anything being the oldest in the year, we fear that academically he's more likely to get bored and act up than struggle with work.

But both of us to this day feel that we did suffer from being younger because of confidence and physical ability that didn't mean we didn't achieve our full potential. Emotionally I wasn't ready for things my friends were even at 18. I graduated when I was still 20 and looking back I feel I only really got the best out of university in my last year as I was simply too immature but wouldn't have benefitted from a year out for exactly the same reason.

We are now are stuck with the decision - which ultimately came down to us viewing confidence and maturity most important as well as him benefitting from a couple more days cooking time. I don't think its a decision you should have to make at either 0 or 3 (which is when you have to think about it, if you have a Summer born). You simply don't know how they will cope.

To my mind I think there needs to be greater flexibility for a movement of children up and down one year within each end of the spectrum based on the child's maturity and how they are coping. I know there is a school of thought that says this is bad for kids too, but I think its about how its done rather than the actual move that makes the difference. A small amount of mixed classes at primary level for example could really blur boundaries and help, without hindering the kids. My primary was small and had three years split into two classes which I do think benefitted everyone at that age.

I think the issue is not the cut off point but the rigidity of school years which aren't really as natural as boundaries. All 11 years olds are not the same and there is a massive difference in maturity and that's the problem that needs to be recognised rather than looking at when they were born too much.

But mrz, now you're talking about OTs and extra support for a child who isn't ready to start writing in reception. And apparently defining ready as doesn't need OT support. Is that your definition of time to start teaching writing to nursery children too?

Another child could be just 2 days younger and just starting nursery and no-one's worried at all, fit in perfectly well with the other children in their class who're 6 months or 12 months younger again. But it makes no difference which they're in??

I don't like the implication that DS's nursery didn't properly "plan" for him. Child led learning. He had every opportunity to pick up a pencil, he was shown over and over how to hold it, he did fine motor stuff all the time, he was just young and below average and not interested. He can't be the only one.

That's the problem, we can't look to the future to see if our children will cope or not. We can only do what we believe is right and we will never know if those decisions were the correct ones. Being a parent isn't easy!

It's all about knowledge of each child as an individual and assessing their needs in consultation with parents.
If a child's motor skills are as poor as you seem to be suggesting and haven't improved over two years would be a concern for most parents and they would be demanding some help.

Extra support like challenging them to peg more clothes on the washing line than I can before the sand timer runs out. Extra support like seeing who can make the longest snake in the play dough table. Extra support like seeing who can get the farthest on the monkey bars.
Occupational therapy like bouncing on a space hopper or scooting on a body board. Occupational therapy like bursting bubbles by clapping or peeling stickers with one hand ...

Why did he need to pick up a pencil in order to develop writing skills?

Planning for a child not interested in picking up a pencil might be Jedi writing with a light sabre or a stick in the sand pit or a paint brush on a wall. The teacher wouldn't wait for the child to go to the pencil they would provide opportunities to develop the skills in a way that would interest the child ...take the learning to child

And if they are improving, at their own rate, only behind average for their age and behind average age for their year? If they're plain not interested in writing?

I would think knowing how to hold a pencil correctly and being able to draw simple shapes would normally be a stage that comes before writing, no?

It's as much about the showing interest as ability too. I don't know any nursery classes that make children learn to write if they're not interested, I don't know any reception classes that don't.

If they aren't interested in pencils but are interested in writing with a light sabre should they wait until they find pencils fascinating?
Is it a case of not being ready to write or a case if finding other activities more interesting?

I don't think the year 1 teacher would have been particularly impressed with a child who could only write with light sabre. I don't think it would enable them to keep up with the year 1 curriculum.

And I don't see the nursery classes rushing to teach them writing with light sabres or pencils. If you're going at the child's pace rather than the teacher's I'd expect either a good number to be learning to write - whether with light sabres or pencils - in nursery, or a good number to be not writing by the end of reception. Just by the nature of the mix of ages and the statistical spread within those ages.

Would they be more impressed with a child who couldn't write at all because they weren't interested in pencils?

I'm not sure what cat's point is any more we've moved from children in reception to children in nursery from a child who couldn't write to a child who wasn't interested in pencils

Personally I wouldn't worry about a nursery child with no interest in pencils but I would be concerned about a child who'd had two years in EYFS and struggled with motor skills.