Great news for summer borns...

[satinpillowcase]

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/08/parents-of-summer-born-children-get-right-to-delay-start-of-school

Quite a few years ago, my late august, prem born DC started school days after their 4th birthday.

It has been fine. But then I was very alive to the fact that it was an issue and ensured it wasn't IYSWIM.

However, if I had my time again I might have kept them back a year.

I completely disagree that all middle class parents of summer born children will defer entry to gain advantage for their children. What a load of competitive parenting rubbish.

They so will. Because I know my peers. It's just I have a moral compass that I won't lie, so I won't be pretending church going, or fake addresses. But I will have no qualms about delaying my April born so she'll be the smartest/oldest in class. It's about every little advantage counts.

Studies of relative age effect has nothing to do with England starting school early. You do better when you are older in a cohort. And that builds confidence which affect you later in life.

Am I the only one smiling slightly at the imagined horror on the faces of all those parents who deliberately conceived their DC to be eldest in the year?

I don't think it's nearly as big an issue as people think it will be. As I said before, where I grew up, this is regularly done. People don't just defer on a whim, because on the whole, most children are ready to start at the right age, and keeping a ready child home or in preschool (which is the alternative there) for an extra year just means child who is in the wrong setting, possibly bored or wanting more interaction and activities with older children, etc. It's not an automatic advantage to be that much older and out of place. The ones who are deferred are older, but with some particular reason for wanting to defer, and they fit in better and are emotionally ready for that year, and don't have the automatic advantage just from being older.

I think the effect of age is probably particularly noticeable in the UK where they start so young. Where I am from, half day play-based school (like reception) starts when children are between 4.5 and 5.5, with full-time school the year after, and it's just preschool before then (play based, optional, childcare - not structured, as someone else said). So delaying the youngest four months of that means that they start at just over 5.5, which is not such a huge difference as to cause an automatic age advantage for those who are ready to learn and be at school (perhaps less of a difference than it would be in the UK when making comparisons between children a whole year younger). But it does make a big difference to those children who really aren't ready to start the year before.

We also have a more flexible system where years can be repeated or skipped if it's agreed that it would be for the best.

Yes I would still be sending my daughter to school at 4 even if the rest of the class were 3-15 months older than her, although as I said I don't think that will be the case where I live as I don't think it's an area where most parents or even any would want to defer, as I think the catchment area obsession is quite localised. My area is a mix of lower middle and working class so classes will be mixed ability anyway, if my dd turns out to be bright she will do fine at school despite her summer birthday.

The problem I have is a modern parenting one. As a parent I can't see what there is to gain by being so pushy and having such high expectations. If your child goes on to get an Oxbridge degree or a fantastic job - so what? Do you want that because it'll make you happy or because you'll feel able to show off more or it'll confirm you've done a good job? I have slightly different measurement standards, perhaps to the majority. I want my children to be happy and nice people. If their ambition or talent is not academic then that's fine with me. If it is, ordinary schooling and a happy home environment will be enough of a basis to achieve that (as it has been for me). I don't want them to do better at school than they should have and be forever out of their depth at work.

My DS is August born and although he is only 2 at the moment, i don think I would need to hold him back a school year.

Although, if this becomes commonplace, he would not only be the youngest child, but the youngest by up to 16 months. This may close the gap for the ones who defer, but widens it for the ones who dont. Where is the sense in that? In this scenario I would consider defering his place just to break even IYSWIM.

In the case of severely premature children who, like PP said were supposed to be October born but were June born and are clearly not ready, then I think its right to make exceptions. But just because you think your 'summer born' child might not be the brightest child in the room if they start school when they are supposed to, isnt good enough reason to change the current system.

My little boy was born on 29th August 2012. He starts school in September 2016. He's pretty quick but has just started preschool (having attended the same nursery) and is having a few anxiety issues. Nothing we're overly concerned about - a bit of a change in routine was bound to bother him initially.
I work for myself and my partner isn't highly-paid either. I'm unsure about the whole deferring thing but free preschool hours would have a big influence on our decision. Would we still get our free 15 hours per week if we chose to defer for a year? Or would that be seen as our choice to delay school therefore we'd have to fund childcare ourselves?
I'd be grateful for any advice.
P.S. No idea what 'class' I am. I don't like wine but I do hanker after an allotment ;)

Tfoot75 I asked the question so only fair I respond.

I think I probably felt the same as you did before my children started school. All I wanted for them was to be happy, socially confident, and vowed to support them in whichever way I could (not just academically).

I am now a Year 6 parent - days away from the start of entrance exams (it's not called the 11+ where we are any more, each state grammar school has an individual entrance exam). I have gradually (over the last 6 years) been sucked into a competitive mindset (tutors etc) because its what every other parent does to stand a better chance of getting into schools that are in the Top 10 nationally. I agree that these great schools are not the be all and end all, and results are not the be all and end all either, but I do think my children will be suited to them anyway (and so will be happy etc) and will offer them great opportunities that they can build on it later life.

I think there are hoards of parents (in my area and similar areas) with a similar mindset hence 2000 boys are expected to take the exam for 180 places who would work the system to the perceived advantage of their children.

At the end of reception year, there were 3 summer-born boys in my DCs class who were still part-time, they were going home 1/2 afternoons per week. They were doing so as if left to their own devices, they would be found in a corner asleep! This is an outstanding school btw, still couldn't keep them awake!! You ain't learning if you are sleeping....

Another point I would like to make is that the EY funding is only available once you are 3 (term after). So, if you are older you get 5 terms early years pre-schooling if you like, but if you are born in the summer, you only get 3 terms. I'd like to see this change, so that everyone is eligible for the same length of time. Currently you need to be in lower income groups to qualify between 2 and 3 years. It's another unfairness that benefits the elder ones.

i agree with Tiggy: What about "spring born" children??!? They will now be the ones who are 12 months or more younger than the oldest child in their class!!

It would help if schools didn't grade children so much. When my August born DS came out of reception at the end of the year with his report sheet detailing "above expected level", "at expected level" or "below expected level" on 24 different criteria, and he had all "below expected criteria", what do I say to him? The school system's rubbish son because it doesn't recognise how great you are but focuses on the fact that you haven't got reading yet? He just knows that his friends have different circles ticked on their forms which make their parents happy.

The school compunded matters by introducing combined year 1 and year 2 classes when he went into Yr 1 so he just died on his arse. By last summer I had a school refuser, at age 5.

No way should that child have started Reception when he did. His writing didn't improve all year and his progress is such that it's too small to record on the official graphs that get sent out, so it just looks like he's flatlining.

Would love to pull him out of the SATs next summer and refuse to jump through their bloody hoops with a child who is nowhere near where he could have been had he started 12 months later.

Interesting points, ladies. I think perhaps a lot of parents feel that if they don't enter into the parenting competition then they aren't doing the best for their children. DD is nine months old and I have two prep places for her already and I have applied for another four. On a logical level, I obviously realise that I am entering into a daft arms race, but I don't want to be the mother that ends up with the worst primary school in the borough in 2019. I agree with Tiggytape about the competition for jobs and university places. I've been a solicitor in the City for eight years and in that short period of time I have seen the number of applicants for each training contract rocket. Firms used to look at degree results and perhaps A levels, now they have to go back as far as GCSEs. I have seen intelligent, hard working candidates with very strong academics (firsts in some instances) really struggle to get a start, which makes me want to give my DD as many opportunities as possible. I think most parents would do the same. We moved house when I was a child with the sole aim of getting into a catchment area - in 1988! My Mum says she was a catchment area tiger parent before it was fashionable. Was it worth it? I think so. She wanted to give me the best education that she could, and I am grateful to her. I doubt I would have got into Cambridge if I hadn't gone to the better school (still a comprehensive school, but with a stronger academic record and a sixth form). Tfoot75 makes a valid point about whether obtaining the better job etc engenders happiness. It does for me, but it won't necessarily be the case for everyone. A few of my friends from Cambridge are now struggling with a sense that they are not 'living up to' their education and as a result, they are feeling a sense of failure for the first time. So perhaps all the education just puts off the inevitable....

I have a friend whose daughter was born in late August. When the girl was in reception, teachers commented she "was slower to complete tasks" than other children in the class. My friend asked "does it both her?". Teacher said no. My friend said "good! Just try to keep it that way. I don't care where she "ranks" as long as she's not upset". Daughter is now in secondary school and is completely "caught up" with her "peers".

I think, as with so much else about education, much depends on parents' attitudes. I never showed my children their school reports nor even mentioned the existence of school reports until they were in late primary school when I thought they might benefit from knowing the constructive suggestions of their teachers, not just of their parents. I wanted them to just enjoy school and progress at their own pace, with support from my husband and me if/when they needed it. They all have late-ish birthdays (late spring) and have all "caught up" academically and athletically, having been a bit "behind" when they started formal education.

It's all too inflexible, some 4.1's are ready for reception, some 4.11's aren't. DD at 3.3 isn't ready for nursery. Can she start next year - of course not. She can't even do 3 afternoons a week, it's 5 afternoons or nothing. Forcing my hand to choose nothing - lucky enough I'm able to afford to look after her myself.

I think a class spanning 16 months is fine, leave it up to the discretion of the parents if their child is ready for reception.

Also, has anyone read what this might mean for early years places in schools at age 3? What would happen if you did defer, as obviously current early years provision couldn't cope with children wanting to repeat the year. Or would you need to defer early years place first of all? And then could you use your 15 hours elsewhere or lose the entitlement? Confusing.

If parents feel the need to hold their children back a year because they genuinely think that their child will not cope then that's understandable. However, parents who purposely chose to hold back their neurotypical, bright, able bodied children simply to ensure that they'll be "the top of the class" and more able than other children are nothing but self centred, self absorbed individuals, and it's kind of pathetic really.

This is interesting, I have two summer born boys, July and late Aug. One of the reasons we decided to home educate for a few years was because ds1 (late Aug) was not ready for school at just four.

We kept the boys out of the school system.until they were aged 9 and 6 and they went into yrs 5 and 2. Ds1 has just started a levels, he got all A*s and A's in his gcses, despite being youngest in his year, he would have been bored senseless if he was held back a year and socially etc he would have struggled I think, Always been like an old man in a child's body.

ds2 has just started yr 9, academically in top sets and doing well but he has some health issues and asc, he is very immature for his age, but in other ways his asc means he communicates like an old person iykwim. So not sure if he would be better off in a year below or not!

Ds4 is March born and fine.
Whereas ds3 is Dec born and still struggles at times but he certainly doesn't need to be in a lower year group and socially that wouldn't work I don't think.

Dd is also Dec born and has just started school, she is ready.

As an aside I am ten wks preg, all being well baby due April, my babies are always late so I assume this one will turn up end of April. If I can defer a school place and I think it would benefit then of course I would delay.

I have a July born ds who had I stayed in the UK would of gone to school that September after turning four so I was delighted that where I moved (Ireland) children have to be at school by their 6th birthday and can delay if you wish.. This meant I was able to keep him at nursery for an extra year and he went at 5 and 2 months where as at four he would definately of struggled.He has just started secondary school aged 13 as their are 8 classes at primary. I also have a July born dd whose 6 now and again she started at 5 and was much better for it I found.
I had two summer born children who went to primary in the uk at age four and 3 months and found they struggled and were so tired after school they would sleep, homework was a nightmare! I can honestly say I have found it much easier with my younger dc starting at a later age here. Also helps that our school day is much shorter.

What I find funny is that the same people who pour scorn on anyone daring to consider keeping their slightly immature August born back so they'll be oldest in the class, pour an equal amount of scorn on someone with a mature, bright September born who thinks they'd fit into the older year better. (No no they're just a baby, they need to play, why would you want them in school...)

Surely those two children, almost exactly the same age, would both do better swapped. Is this about what's best for the children, or about the difficulty of administration for flexibility?

I was wondering if they will also let the obviously very bright and ready for school September born children, go to school early? On the recommendation of my nursery, my parents tried to get me into school early ( back in the 70s) but it wasn't allowed. I didn't enjoy reception, as I was a foot taller than many children and could already read and write fairly well - and played with older children during breaks. I think initially finding everything so easy made me quite lazy - and I think I would probably have benefited long term by being in the year above

I agree that it will mostly be pushy parents taking this up because they don't want their child to be on the middle ability table.

The thing is - if the option is the norm, as it is in Scotland to an extent, it won't be perceived by a parent as pushy. I assume not all parents deferring in Scotland are viewed that way.