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

This is how it used to be and worked a treat.
My ds1 started reception in september aged 5. 2 weeks, no way was he ready before.
DS2 born December started school in January also aged 5. 1month

DD had to start in september at 4.8 months under a newer system. She was ready though, thank goodness.

Have just read more of the thread and will admit honestly, it made no difference at all in the long run.
They were no brighter or no dimmer than any of their peers when they'd completed school.
It may help them emotionally but academically it doesn't make any difference.
Mine are 24 and 20 now, who went through the old system.

Will it be from April 1st or will it be the vague summer term babies so a baby born April 18th may or may not be allowed to defer depending on when Easter falls that year?

In 11+ areas, parents would defer to get a grammar school advantage (12 year olds taking 11+)

But will they be allowed to take it a year late, it is taken during the school year in which children turn 11, presumably parents can't enter their children at whatever age they want to.

This is how it used to be and worked a treat.
My ds1 started reception in september aged 5. 2 weeks, no way was he ready before.
DS2 born December started school in January also aged 5. 1month

Did they each have 7 years in primary school and go to secondary school aged 12?

The 11+ is to determine which schools children will go to at the start of Year 7. It's taken at the start of Year 6. So if children who defer and are allowed to stay in their "deferred year" throughout, surely it stands to reason those children will be taking it a year late.

No, the boys were in a mixed infant class yr/to y2, they went up at 11.
The school just taught them all together and tbh were happy they went so the school didn't close. So they had the advantage of a late start, still went into reception, then y1 but moved into y2 work a bit earlier.
They left before secondary as we moved a huge distance.
There were about 12 in the infants and maybe 15 juniors iirc.

The 11+ is to determine which schools children will go to at the start of Year 7. It's taken at the start of Year 6. So if children who defer and are allowed to stay in their "deferred year" throughout, surely it stands to reason those children will be taking it a year late.

But there is no guarantee that children will be allowed to stay in their deferred year beyond primary school.
Also the 11+ is meant to find the brightest children born within a school year, i.e children born between September 2004 and August 2005 will sit it this year, in the deferred scenario you'd have children born in April 2005 onwards.

Folks - please be very aware - this is NOT AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT nor does deferring mean you can keep your school place!
The new ruling is:

You MUST apply for a place in your child's correct chronological year at your chosen school(s).
You can then negotiate with the LA & school and try to get an agreement to defer entry. The onus is on the parent to prove why it is necessary and the school DOES NOT HAVE TO AGREE.

REALLY IMPORTANT BIT - Even if the school(s) does agree, this DOES NOT mean you have a place at the school. You have to reapply with everyone else the following year. If there are more children that meet the NORMAL ADMISSIONS criteria higher than you, for example there are more siblings and you are not , or more children who live closer - YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOCATED A PLACE IN THAT SCHOOL and will go into the normal admissions system.

allpizza I don't know very much about it, other than it was suggested earlier that deferred children would stay in the deferred year throughout.

And if that's the case children sitting the exams around now (Year 6) could be born between April 1 2004 and August 31 2005.

You couldn't have children sitting it at the correct age (ie in the year they turned 11) if they were allowed to defer and stay with their deferred year group because then the (deferred) children would be taking it at the start of Year 5 but not needing a place until Year 7.

If the deferred child is not allowed to carry on deferring in senior school, which year do you skip? Year 1? Year 6?

That's why I don't think it'll work.

I think a really bad idea. I'm in Scotland with two February birthdays. I hate it on so many levels. Jan/Feb is mainly the decision of the parent. It is a massive decision.

DD1 I didn't know it was common to 'keep them back'. She was the youngest - in an older class anyway (lots of March, April birthdays) and with almost 20% of the class deferred - one 15 months older, another 14 months older - only one other non-deferred child. And the ones who had deferred didn't 'need' to.
She could read fantastically well (fluently)- so academically she was fine, I couldn't imagine her doing another year of nursery... but emotionally she struggled. There were also several children older than her in the year below...
She is the second youngest in year of her high school...a couple of years ago one of her friends (14) who had deferred told her to grow up - how old are you? 12? DD1 said er yes ...I am...
Apparently non-deferred children struggle at the start and towards the end of school - we have that to face yet...
DD2 really tough decision- at the end of the nursery year she would be the only child who deferred (others deferred at preschool). If she had deferred all her friend's would have gone into school and she would be joining a group that had been together for a year - I did actually try and keep a relationship going with children from the younger year -in case I was told they didn't think she was ready. I was told she was - but encouraged to defer - children who defer do better. The final reason I didn't was because I realised if we ever needed to move to England (had family illness etc) the English system wouldn't take it into account - potentially she could go from last year primary to second year secondary... In her class there are a few deferred children - but a couple of them really needed to be deferred..oldest is 13 months older and quite a few non-deferred Sept-Nov birthdays. She is fine.
As others have said - lots of middle class parents use it to give their DC an advantage - what sums that up is that 2 children I know who went onto private schools both deferred (you can defer at any age) - one was an Oct birthday... In Scotland you can defer from Aug/Sept (although you need a report/recommendation) you have potentially an 18 month difference....
I think if everyone went at the 'right' age - unless there were rare real serious concerns as advised by a nursery/assessment - the class dynamics and the way they are treated would be more tailored to their development. Instead you have bright, mature children with keen parents who deferred but didn't need to...with ones who should have deferred - mixed with the ones who are 'young' but if they had deferred would be the more advanced ones in a younger class...a massive difference. I hate it.

mandy if you do defer - that's it. You stay in the year group and move up to secondary school in that year group. The deferral is for 'life' so to speak

Thanks effin thought that was the case... Completely unworkable imo!

There are cases - VERY FEW - that I've seen in 10+ years where I can see that deferring would have made a sense. As lots of other point out, by year 6 the 'difference' in academic attainment and social maturity is gone. I think this will very much be the exception not the rule.

As lots of other point out, by year 6 the 'difference' in academic attainment and social maturity is gone.

That's just not true. There are statistically more Autumn-borns at the top universities!

All the stats show that birth month has an ongoing effect way past year six ( in general).

It's just that by year 6 we've stopped considering birth month and accepted the pecking order.

Someone has to be the youngest. This will just mean it will be summer born who don't defer - now so much younger than the ones who have from the year before or children born earlier in the year.

Sorry Mandy I obviously meant April 2004 not 2005, it was late.

The thing about statistics is how do they translate, statistics may show that more autumn born children are at top universities but does that mean 5% more, 25% more, 50% more?

In my experience, as a parent and professionally, from year 3 onwards the highest attainers in a year group are not generally all the autumn born children and are as likely to be born in April or June.
I think one problem is that 'summer born' spans almost half of the year - perhaps deferral should only be offered to August children? Although I know someone born at 11.30 pm on August 31st who has just got a decent set of A levels, should he have started school a year later to try and get all A*s?

I agree with it for children with Sen or genuinely dev delayed and need the extra year, but reception is v like nursery anyway so don't really see the argument for other children as they can go PT until 5 anyway.

My youngest has autism and would benefitted from being with younger children (he'd still have been behind). But my older two (March birthdays) both above average academically and bored out their minds at primary by end year 5. Both ready for secondary by end year 5 and hated the last year, parents who hold able children back for an advantage are going to have very bored children by end primary.

I think some 11+ take age into account so if oldest in year in effect have to score higher

I never found being youngest in year disadvantage I think it's harder to be oldest when you are expected to do better and can feel like a failure if much younger children overtake you. I know loads of August and even sept (moved up a year) birthdays who were top of class ahead of all the older children. I can't see any advantage holding kids of that ability back an extra year.

It'll just be an arms race.

I have two August dcs, and yes, I would have deferred. Especially in the case of dd, who had a miserable Reception year. And of course if deferring would have advantaged them - yes please! I can honestly imagine it would not make for good classes if you have girls (who mature earlier) 16 months older than boys in the class. I would be really angry if my ds was competing (in the case of the 11+, as people have mentioned, or for sports teams) against children so much older.

It'll just change the school year and in no time it'll be back to square one with all the Jan to March parents asking to defer.

But the smart thing about this change of school year intake, is that the spring born effect won't be supported by research until 20 years later. You can't do an outcome study until they get selected by junior football or Oxbridge. By that time the people in power would have retired.

The relative age effect won't change. It's just shifted now to spring borns. And any summer born parents who don't defer.

The deferral should be only for children who have SEN and very prematurely born. But should be supported by expert statements. If it's up to the parents, it's just what pushy parents would do to give their child a perceived advantage.

It is an arms race and the outcome would be worse than it is now.

Found this report on the guardian on the affects of birth month on a variety of things: www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/nov/01/birth-month-affects-results-well-being
The report is quite damning, but if you look at the actual results tables the difference is tiny in percentage points, eg likelihood to attend RG uni is 0.025% less likely for children born in August compared to September, which seems a very tiny effect (unless I'm interpreting it wrongly). Interestingly, the September born child has a greater % swing towards drinking alcohol or smoking cannabis compared to August born children, so take of that what you will.

It seems to me that the difference is there, but so slim as to make almost no difference to the average person, and certainly not worth investing an extra years nursery cost on the 1 in 4000 chance that your child might be the August born child that misses out?

July-born DS was always the smallest in his class, but not quite the youngest, and we discussed him staying back but were advised to hold it in reserve so that the "spare" year could be used elsewhere, for a scholarship attempt perhaps. (At 9, his struggle to write turned out to be poor visual processing skills, and any possibility of a scholarship evaporated.) He has just gone into Y12, having largely caught up his cohort in size, emotional maturity and academic results in the last 18 months. However, if his A level results were predicted to fall very short, we might consider a third year of study in pursuit of MC advantage!

Purely personal and anecdotal evidence comes from DNs. One was born late August and the other early September, and their educational outcomes were polar opposites. One was always smallest and slowest; the other among the oldest and most advanced, and the consequences of not having the option to defer starting school has followed them into adulthood.