Would you defer a summerborn simply because you could?

[Goatcoat]

This was the advice given to me by a child learning practitioner (not a teacher but a specialist who works in schools). They said to "always defer if you can, even if you think your summerborn could cope fine... Better to be one of the eldest than one of the youngest".

My DC2 is a summerborn (not school age just yet though) and the above comments are playing on my mind.

We can afford the extra year of childcare, and having seen my nephew struggle as a summerborn, I must admit it's something I'm considering. DC2 is a bright little thing if I do say so myself! so I am imagining that we would be doing it purely because we could rather than because we'd need to. Education is very important to me and whilst I don't necessarily want DC to be top of the class, I want to give them the best possible start in life. It feels like deferring would do that, whereas not deferring would possibly make me doubt/worry/question whether I'd done the wrong thing.

Lifestyle wise not deferring makes things easier having less of a school year gap between the DC. And I imagine they will be closer if there is a smaller gap... But... But.... But... DC might be "fine" if we don't defer, but "amazing" if we did.

Can deferring be a bad thing??

I AM delaying my August born twins start to school. They will not be going Sept 2016, instead they will be starting in Reception at csa in Sept 2017 as agreed with my LA. They were 2 months prem & one has a severe expressive language delay, however I would have fought to delay them anyway. I have an 8 yo Sept born who struggled to cope on entry ti school and we now know why, 2 weeks ago he was diagnosed with moderate Autism, ADHD & SPD. Nobody believed me until he didn't cope with transition to KS2. It's not reception year that is the problem, it's into Y1 or like for us, into y3. It's not about how academically bright a child is, it's about cognitive development. I'm an ofsted outstanding childminder who runs a preschool & I have seen many "bright" summer born children falter massively on transition into ks1, and as the poster before says, the impact isn't just on that child, it's everyone else in the class who is affected.

My personal opinion is that the current system is discriminative. The only children being forced to miss a year of education for starting at a legally prescribed age (unless agreed otherwise) are summer born children. Not every child will be able to cope starting at just turned 4yo, and for those children I believe the parents (who know their children best) should get the decision. My LA tried to scaremonger my HT by saying that lots would request a delay for trying to cheat the 11+. Really? For a whole 6 marks standardisation that the very youngest are given? How many have approached my HT? Erm none.

As a general rule, more invested and wealthier parents tend to defer by a whole year where this is an option for parents to take. One study pointed out that the majority who defer by choice in this way are "white, wealthy and male".

^^please can you provide a link to this study tiggytape?

If the system was made easier for lower income parents it would then be their choice, as it already is. There are many low income families who choose this option for their children. With the proposed 30 hour funding this may help some families further.

Classes already have 16 month age gaps - I think some people forget that this is already an option. There are 4 LAs who already grant automatic right for summer born children whose parents want them to start school in reception at CSAge, without any specific need, it's automatic. There are also many more admission authorities, including LAs who grant all requests unofficially.

Parents can already defer by choice, this is already our right, the problem is some admission authorities are then forcing children into year one. The right to a full education should not be determined by your postcode.

Yes, there always has to be a cut off and there is. Within this cut off children should not be made to miss a year of education for purely starting school at CSAge. With regards to March babies being the new August babies etc. I understand your point but the statistics proof March babies aren't as badly effected in terms of academic, physical, social and emotional development. They will not become the new August babies, they will remain March babies, but they will (possibly) have more children 'ready' for school in their classrooms. Less summer born children that have been forced to start early or miss a year which has a negative effect on them and their classmates; taking up more precious teaching time, interventions etc.

No, this won't solve all the problems in the schooling system but it's a start, no child should be penalised for starting school at our legal school starting age.

I am a teacher and I think learning through play is crucial and another year developing skills in early years cannot hurt, however all children are individuals which is why flexibility is crucial. I did change my daughters cohort. She is at the end of August and is now in Year 2 - should be in Year 3. She is thriving and I would suggest that is the point. Our system can work flexibly and people who insist that there must be a rigid cohort system haven't yet provided a good argument as to why flexibility cannot be offered. The usual comment is they will cope. My daughter will have to cope with many things in life... illness, financial difficulties... the list goes on but education shouldn't be an area where she copes so that systems can be neat and tidy. Admission authorities drive the idea it is difficult to plan but we gave 2 years notice of our intention. We had a huge battle but even the lawyers they brought to the meeting were unable to argue with the principle that our daughter should be enabled to thrive and access same school provision as her September friend. I am surprised by the head teachers belief that children would be forced to miss a year. How would that be justified? How would the child catch up the missed year? Again I am not sure that missing a year could be argued was in a child's best interest. The head should consider how difficult it is for parents who believe their child to be gifted to argue for a missed year at school. Very few are allowed as each year is seen as crucial emotionally, cognitively and socially. By contrast those same arguments supported my request and that should be the overriding principle in working out whether a child should change cohort.

Interestingly I work with a group of 'gifted' (although not keen on the term) Y7s who were discussing birthdays the other night - turns out 85% of them are amongst the youngest in their year. I was also the youngest in my school year and was way ahead - not that this small sample means anything, but I do think we worry too much.

We deferred with dd1 and ds, because it was a genuine deferral. In Scotland, you can defer into the next year for dc born in Jan and Feb, so my Feb-born dc started school at 5y6m and I have never regretted it for an instant. In fact I feel a bit sorry that dates meant it wasn't an option for dd2 who seemed scarily young starting at 4y9m.

They've always been close to the oldest but it's not just that - it was starting into secondary at 12 not 11, which gave them a maturity advantage (I'm a teacher and have seen young-11 year olds really struggle with that transition), dd1 sits exams this year and will be that bit more ready as she's more mature and able to appreciate it more.

At one point we were considering a move to England for work but I spoke to the LEA who would have insisted on putting them "up" a year with no extra support and that was a nail in the coffin!

Elsewhere in Europe children start school later. I'm glad we had the option and I'm glad we took it!

Just to clarify - in Scotland the school entry year is the calendar year so no one starts before 4.6, with deferral for those in Jan and Feb increasingly popular.

There is a little boy in Dd's class born perm with cerabral palsy who really could have done with deferring. He has an April birthday and was barely potty trained when he started school. I feel deferral should be an option where there is mild developmental delay. It should not be available to other summer borns whose parents simply want them to be top of the class. Someone has to be the youngest.

Children with Autumn birthdays who are developmentally advanced should be allowed to start earlier. I am so glad dd does not have a winter birthday. She could have done with starting school six months earlier than she did. Thankfully school nursery let her into the reception class early as it was a foundation stage unit.

Attitude to learning and innate intelligence makes more of a difference than age. The advantage that an older child has is less by the time they get to secondary. Underachievement of summer borns may be caused by premature use of ablity tables or low expectations. In the past summer borns had less school.

I think that children benefit from the intellectual challenge of school. Children outgrow nursery and there is a real explosion of development when children start school.

I think there needs to be some flexibility, but parents should not be allowed to defer because their ikkle snowflake isn't the oldest. A deferral decision should be a professional decision.

Underachievement of summer borns may be caused by premature use of ablity tables or low expectations.

There is a large amount of research showing this is not the case. The problem is that the curriculum itself is poorly conceived, and that summer-born children are disproportionately affected by the mismatch between ability and expectations. The effects of this bad start last for years, with substantial social and emotional, as well as academic, impacts.

Some of the research is summarised on this Institute of Education blog with links to the original research:

There is substantial evidencece_ that the current reception curriculum is developmentally inappropriate for four-year-olds. And there is a disconnect between some of its demands and the capabilities of young children.^

For example, speech therapists advise that many four-year-olds cannotot yet pronounce the full range of speech sounds. But the curriculumum requires that these same children demonstrate their recognition of letters by vocalising them.
...
Occupational therapists also argue that the full range of skills necessary to begin writing are not presentnt in most children until at least five years old. Yet the reception curriculumum expects four-year-olds to “write simple sentences which can be read by themselves and others”.

If all parents take up their right to delay reception entry for their summer-born children, they will be better equipped to thrive under the current curriculum. They will be less likely to have their confidence and enthusiasm knocked by unjustified expectations. And they might be less likely to be wrongly diagnoseded_ with special educational needs, simply due to their age^.

Gah, sorry about the underlines. Don't know how they appeared.

"Because their ickle snowflake isn't the eldest".....I can truthfully say that all the parents I've come across as a member of the Summerborn Campaign are not attempting to delay their child's start to school for that reason! They are all without exception genuinely concerned that their children are not socially, emotionally or academically equipped to start school at just turned 4yo. Maybe there are people who will capitalise on a choice, but for the thousands of others who do know their child best and want an informed choice, I don't believe these individuals should be denied the choice.

..an August baby could be in a class with children 16 months older than him or her so it is even harder than before..

And the children who find themselves in this situation will not be your children.

You are educated, engaged enough in your child's education to be posting about it on MN, and able to afford childcare.

The summer-born children who do not defer, who now find themselves 16 months younger than the oldest rather than just 11 months younger than the oldest, will disproportionately be children of parents who are poorly-educated themselves or disengaged/uninterested in their child's education, or just financially struggling. The exact children who are already at a disadvantage.

My DTs were born on 29th August; due in September. I worry about what decision to make in less than a year. I suspect one might be more ready than the other.

There was a message up thread about sports teams. DH is a PE teacher now and played school rugby for England. If you were in the 'wrong' year you'd still be able to play with your age group in most matches, but wouldn't be able to play in cup competitions (like the daily mail cup for rugby). You'd also find it more difficult to play representative sport - DH says that technically kids can go to trials for the year above (he played England rugby a year young) but it's often not an issue, particularly for rugby, as they're then the youngest in the year and so are going up against kids nearly 12 months older than them for the same positions.

The summer-born children who do not defer, who now find themselves 16 months younger than the oldest rather than just 11 months younger than the oldest, will disproportionately be children of parents who are poorly-educated themselves or disengaged/uninterested in their child's education, or just financially struggling. The exact children who are already at a disadvantage.

Scotland has long had a deferral system, and the decision to defer is not affected by level of income, parental education level, or area deprivation. High- and low-income families are equally likely to defer their child's entry to primary school, as are highly-educated and poorly-educated parents. Children in deprived areas are just as likely to have deferred entry as children in price legend areas.

The most disadvantaged children are well served by the Scottish system of deferral, not disadvantaged further by it. There's no reason to expect it to be different in England.

I would, if not for them bring the youngest at 4-5yo, but more for them being youngest at secondary school, having kids potentially going through puberty much sooner etc.

My dd was a September born and I felt she had some advantage over her summer born friends! I noticed she was also less tired after school (parent comments, play dates etc). She definitely seemed ready at 5.

I'm now pregnant and due 30th July. My 13 month old is December born so not concerned but if I can get my summer born starting a year later I will. However not if that means going straight in year 1! Reception is important for transitioning I think

My ds is July-born and had thrived at school..there's no way I would have held him back if the option existed then.

He is ahead of his peers in most respects in his current year group, so I don't think he would have coped with another year of nursery at all.

I'm in Scotland and ds(12 last week) was only 10 days from the cut-off. He was ready for school but most parents I spoke to recommended deferring, especially for boys, as they would be more mature later in their education. I neighbour wished she has deferred as all through her sons schools years teachers always said at parent evenings he was the youngest in the class but would catch up, so she felt he was playing catch up all the time.

In the end we went with our gut feeling and deferred meaning he started school at 5.5 years rather than 4.5 year. So far haven't regretted it and there isn't any significant difference between him and his classmates (aside from him being a foot taller than his tiny best friend, but he was always going to be tall).

In Scotland the cutover is the end of February and parents can defer Jan/Feb birthdays. Nov/Dec birthdays can be deferred too, but there is a process to go through to justify it. IMO, the English system of starting school just turned 4 is too young.

Absolutely no. The only reason to defer is if that individual child would benefit because of simply who they are. Some summer babies are ready for school and it would be detrimental to delay. The problem is we have a one solution for all education system which does not take into account that everybody is an individual with their own strengths and weaknesses.

I have an end of August baby who has thrived at school. She struggled with the more physical aspects like pen grip, dressing and undressing etc but reception teachers are well aware of this likely gap and work with the children on these areas.

Her sister was born in the first week of September and will be beyond bored by the time she gets to start in reception. She attends the pre-school at her sisters (independent) school and I am very thankful as they are giving her play based "work" that is keeping her interested.

Rather interestingly though she has four children in her class who are supposed to start reception this September but are deferring. It is just pushing the advantage to a different set of birthdays and in 10 years time I'm sure there will be another debate that Spring term children are now the disadvantaged ones as everyone defers.

You know your child best and if you feel they will be ok at school then just because you can defer doesn't mean you should!!!

I wouldn't have deferred ds who has severe sn. Provision for children like him is poor at nursery age and I wanted him to be with staff who know what they are doing.

I would have with two of mine but not at the expense of missing reception terms or the whole of reception year - which was the choice we faced.

They are doing well - but did have toileting and some social problems in reception year. They do better with school older there are - but they have had a lot of parental support when they needed it.

Youngest child is also summer born but wouldn't have deferred her. Having older siblings close in age seemed to bring her on much faster in development terms.