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??

Statistically 25% of children on send register are August born. Children diagnosed with ADHD are on significantly higher dosage of medication if August born. These are proper studies taking account large numbers. I have taught children who are "bright" and above average and are summer born and some would still have benefitted emotionally and cognitively. I do get irritated by educational experts who Base advice solely on their anecdotal experience. The evidence demonstrates life long disadvantage for some, although for others they succeed despite system. I did in fact succeed against many odds. Fab for me, but that doesn't close me down to idea flexibility could really improve outcomes for others.

if English deferral sysem was like Scotland it would mean July/August could defer just by asking and that may/june could defer but would need reasons ie recommendation of nursery/early years education or the child was premature,
In Scotland if reason is accepted (for nov/dec)or your child are jan /feb born you get funding for extra year nursery if not you can still defer until past 5th birthday but you will not get your 15 hours free for the extra year
though not illegal to defer sept/oct borns it is virtually impossible to get funding for the extra years nursery

personally I would only count July/aug and maybe june as summer borns certainly not april

Are there statistics about the proportions of kids on the g&t register that are Autumn born?

My late July born was totally ready but I do think it is very rigid and would be better to assess on a child by child basis if the parents feel they are not ready - whenever they were born. A resources problem I suppose

February born in Scotland here and we'll be deferring her. When I ask myself if it's a good idea or not I remind myself that I just don't believe a classroom is the best place for a 4 year old 5 days a week, all week, no matter how play based the curriculum.

Also if I'd deferred DS we wouldn't have had a miserable "half term" doing homework projects.

Alternatively perhaps we should stop expecting so much of primary aged kids.

I would. My June born DD would definitely have benefitted from an extra year before school. And my October born DS, very bright & able academically, was socially inept and would perhaps have been happier with an extra years maturity under his belt, and better at sharing and making friends.

Statistically 25% of children on send register are August born.

Surely this indicates that schools and ed psychs are mis-identifying send register (and that this issue should be addressed).

25% of August born on the SEN register? Doesn't sound much above average. I thought most schools have 20 - 30% children on the register.

Remember being on the register means nothing. Someone with poor handwriting might be on the register on one school and not at another. Yet they might both get the same support. Or not. You can't tell. Being in the register is (unfortunately) a meaningless statement.

One thing people don't seem to have considered is beyond year R.

Ds is an immature 8yo summer born now. He wasn't ready to start school in year R, nor really in year 1. I felt he was about ready in the summer term in year 1.
He's now year 4 and is definitely the correct year. He's academically at the top (year of 160) and socially fits on well. Having seen him interacting with a group of older year 3 recently, he would be finding the very frustrating socially.
I'm glad I didn't have the option to defer, as I would have, and now I'd be realising it was the wrong thing to do.

I also do find it interesting the studies that show September/October born do better. I went to Oxford and there were a significant number of those birthdays. However a high proportion of those had gone a year ahead so would have been even younger in the year than the summer borns.
So I think there's more to it than just being young in the year.

And dm was a June birthday. She was also 2 years ahead at school. She said the main issue she had was in games, other than that it didn't matter.

Witchend Yes, that's exactly the point I tried to make (less well) a couple of pages ago. What's right for YR might well not be right by KS2, either way. You have to just try your best to predict for your particular child.

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^.

Unfortunately you've fallen for the IoE's typical strategy of making shit up to prove whatever point their current agenda is. The evidence they think they have doesn't really show what they think it does at all. And you can probably find just as many speech therapists and occupational therapists that disagree with the ones that they are quoting.

There are areas in which some summer born children can lag behind autumn born ones, but they are rarely academic ones. The expectations of the adults around them probably play as big a difference as age itself.

Chalk hearts if schools has 30-30% of pupils on the SEND register how likely do you think that every single child on the register will have an August birthday? As a SENCo I can say there isn't a single child on our SEND register who was born in August ...and a few who were born in September.

And you can probably find just as many speech therapists and occupational therapists that disagree with the ones that they are quoting.

And your evidence for this statement is what? The ones they quoted are just describing standard, textbook age ranges of development. If there were plenty of speech therapists and occupational therapists ready to state that, in their professional opinion, all typically developing 4 year olds have fully mature speech and manual articulation systems, then there are plenty of places they can voice that opinion. Instead, the silence is deafening. Because it would be a daft thing for a professional to say something so clearly untrue.

There are areas in which some summer born children can lag behind autumn born ones, but they are rarely academic ones

Again, where on earth is your evidence for this? Because most of the evidence is about academic achievement. If you don't like the IoE then fine, but they're not the ones who carried out the research. There are many big, well-conducted studies tracking the academic (and other) disadvantages that summer-born children experience throughout their school career. It doesn't mean that every September-born child will outperform every August-born child, but when you look at large-scale data, the differences are, on average, very real.

Mrz - that's what I mean. I was quoting a previous poster who was complaining about the number of August born pupils on the SEN register. And I said it sounded like a perfectly avg number not a high number.

I think the pp said 20% of the children with statements had August birthdays. That's 1 in 5, where you'd expect 1 in 12 if birthday made no difference.

20% of those with August birthdays having SEN wouldn't be statistically significant if 20% of the general school population has a SEN. But that's not the statistic under discussion.

Mrshathaway - according to this govt paper www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182664/DFE-RR017.pdf there is no seasonal variation for pupils who have a statement.

"At both Key Stages, seasonal variation is most marked for children at School Action, then School Action Plus. There is minimal seasonal variation amongst children with statements."

Chalk I think that sentence you quoted is out of context, or at least not very well expressed in the first place in the report.

From the same report:

Looking at the incidence of Statements of SEN (those with the greatest need), August-born pupils are almost 30% more likely than September- born pupils to have a statement at Key Stage 2, rising to almost 40% more likely at Key Stage 4.

I live in Liverpool where you can automatically defer any summer born without a reason.
I will definitely be taking this option. I can't see any real negatives.

I have a question! So, you defer your child for a year. And once he/she started school, you found out your child was way way ahead of everyone.
Is your child allowed to go back up to their original year? Or they have to stay as they are?

No, I wouldn't have deferred either of my summer-born children. They were both mature enough to cope with school at four and would have been very frustrated waiting another year at that point.

They are both very able and would, I think, have been held back by being the oldest in the year (and potentially have got away with doing very little work, which is not great either).

There are occasionally times when they get annoyed that they are the youngest in their year group. From time to time, things come up that depend on birth date rather than school year, and they see friends getting the chance to do things first. This is more of an issue now they are at secondary. But it's not enough of a problem for me to think that deferring would have been a good idea, if the option had been available.

No Irvine they are unlikely to be able to change school year groups unless it's possible to an in year transfer (space available in that year - someone leaves) especially in over subscribed areas.

The problem in Scotland now is that the school year is effective moving to an November to November year. I don't have any issues with people deferring for evidenced developmental reasons, but most people I know defer because they perceive it will give their child an advantage, no matter how much they say 'he is so young'. They then say those that are not deferred are not mature compared to their own.

I don't have a summer born but what would bother me is the potential 17 month difference in oldest and youngest wherever my child sat in that class. That is a huge difference in a class. Both for teaching and social development. I'm sure it would create problems for all members of the class.

There is 8 months between ds (second oldest in the class) and the youngest and they get on fine, but there is a big difference in play and the older ones get frustrated with the young ones and vice versa. When reception are with y1 it's difficult when there is a wide variety of ages. Ds gets on with the younger few of y1 etc.

I just think blurring the lines so much makes it difficult for the class dynamic, socially especially...

It's difficult because there has to be a cut off somewhere and someone has to be the youngest so moving dates and kids around just moves the problem that can't be avoided.

We didn't defer. My y2 dd (end of August baby) is doing well, things don't come ridiculously easy to her but it's teaching her the value of hard work. And I think it's going to help her more in life than sitting on the top table just because of the time of year when she was born.