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??

or MrsHathaway they could completely mirror the Scottish system and change the date to End Feb :)

Calling April "summer born" seems a bit much to me. In Scotland it's the youngest two months who have free choice and the next two are "with a good reason".

Technically as you don't have to be enrolled in school until age 5, you could defer any child who turns 5 after school commences in August in Scotland. In practice it would be highly unusual and you may not get a funded nursery provision. But there isn't a specific "national" rule about which months, individual councils may have guidelines but I do know those have been successfully fought in terms of getting the nursery provision funded to at least give the child their full 2 years.

Scotland is more flexible. Both my boys are February (cutoff for August start at 4.5).

Ds1 started school at 4.5 in a tiny school (25 in whole school - 2 other P1s were girls 10 months older than him who could already read and write) and it didn't suit him at all.

We moved just before the end of the school year. The new school said he was woefully behind his peers and gave us the option of starting P1 again there, which was 100% the right decision for him and he's thrived.

Ds2 was keen to go to primary at 4.5 and nursery said he was capable so we didn't defer. He has also thrived. No issues academically- being the youngest was more of an issue for his teachers initially as he was fidgety and chattered too much, disturbing other children. Socially the only issues were things like missing out on paintball parties etc. Being too young to go. I'm aware he may have similar issues when he goes to university.

He's in third year of secondary now and I just asked him if he would have liked to have deferred "oh no. The ones in the year below are no fun at all" so I gather he's still happy socially as well as academically.

I have lived a system like this - in the US.

Like Scotland, my school had a 14 month spread of birthdays. I was at the younger end (July birthday), started at 5.2 and did fine academically but probably would have benefited socially from another year at preschool.

And because in the US they can "hold back" a child who is not performing well at their grade level, we probably has AT LEAST an 18 month spread as time went on. I remember the one kid who had lost most of his teeth before some of us had even started.

If your kids are bored at preschool though? Then the preschool doesn't have enough to stretch the older children or is very unimaginative! (Former preschool teacher klaxon!)

Very interesting.

Our DD is August born and prem so should have been late September. She started at the normal time. She was one of the most outgoing at nursery and was very keen to start school. She could form all her letters and read a little before she started. If anything she was ahead in Reception but she is yr 2 now and she seems to be falling behind.

I worry that this has been allowed to happen because of her August birthday. Many of her autumn/winter/spring born class mates have had one on one help for the areas she struggles in and caught up yet this has never been offered to her. Instead, we only found out there was a problem when her school suggested we think about holding her back a year now and redoing Yr 2. Their view being that it is common for summer borns to struggle so it would be more appropriate to do this than to try and give her extra help to get up to speed. Essentially - why bother to try and get her back on track when we could just move her down a year and she'd automatically be top of the class?

Her teachers' expectations for her are too low and as far as I can see they have just left her to fall to the bottom of the heap because that is where they expect summer borns to be. Standardised testing they carried out on her year group put her almost at the top so she has the ability - they just demand far less of her than the others.

Obviously I want what is best for her and if I thought it was dropping back a year I'd be all for it. But I've looked into it and have a couple of big concerns. She is very sociable and has made lots of good friendships in her year. Being held back will make her feel she has 'failed' or wasn't 'as good' as her friends - I fear it will crush her confidence completely. Then of course there is the huge issue of what happens when she needs to transfer to secondary school. She is in a private school at the moment and I have called dozens of schools to see how they would treat an application from her if she were held back a year. They have ALL said they would only allow her to apply in 'the correct' year for her birthday. So if we hold her back now she will be tested at 11+ or 13 on a curriculum she won't yet have covered.

I appreciate that this is slightly tangential to the OP, but I suppose the point I am making is that all the attention there has been recently on the apparently generalised poor performance of summer borns has actually made it harder for them to do well. Someone is always going to be the youngest in any class but as the many summer born OP's stories of success prove that doesn't mean they have to be the least able.

Returning to the OP, would I have deferred DD's entry if I could have? Looking back I think the answer would still be no. She was ready for school and loved year R and the uncertainty around what happens to out of year children at secondary transfer is just too great.

have an end of July dd - she battled her way through reception and Y1 to catch up (and overtake!) the other kids at school work. She battles to get into the sports teams and always just scrapes it as she's against the autumn born kids.

if I'd deferred then her primary years would have been a lot easier. She might have been happier. But she wouldn't have become the battler that she is - and that fighting spirit is the thing that might give her the edge some day.

Would I have deferred had someone asked me when she was 4? yes probably. Would I defer with the benefit of being able to see her age 10? probably not.

I would have liked to defer my youngest DD- july born, still not settling into reception, asking every day if she has to go to school. She has lovely friends and the school is good- both older kids went/are in the school too. I think extra time at home /nursery would have been more beneficial to her as I am afraid she will never be a school lover now.

Slightly late to this thread however I am a July born and feel I would have benefitted very much from an extra year. I have aspergers but this wasn't apparent until much later in my schooling. My husband is a September born, he also has aspergers traits but has done remarkably well for himself (PhD and is now a university lecturer) without a diagnosis.

My son is July born and with 2 aspergers parents is extremely likely to inherit, and at 2.5 already displays some high functioning autistic traits. He's very very bright but i will fight to hold him back as the double disadvantage of being summer born and ASD is too much. I'm very anxious about whether he will be able to be held back. My own school life was hell and I have had much therapy as an adult to come to terms with it.

Parents should absolutely be able to hold summer borns back without ANY input from professionals - we know our situations and our children best. Anyone who thinks this is not a necessary thing has been extremely lucky in life.

Someone will always be the youngest! Plenty of summer born children are bright and flourish in the correct year group. Mine was mid August birthday and it never occurred to me, or her, that she was young until it came round to celebrating birthdays in class and hers was never mentioned. She got a place at Oxford and, in answer to a comment up thread, no, she would not have done better in any other school. Two of her summer born (July) class mates went to Oxford and Cambridge as well. If they had started school later, I would have thought it would be more difficult for the teachers to teach them according to their needs had they been held back as they would have been well ahead of the younger children. Not all summer borns need to be handled with kid gloves. Mine would have been livid about not starting school. She was ready before she actually went.

Boj. That maybe the case for your DD and friends. However cold hard facts show that younger children often have the disadvantage

Because the kids that get a place at Oxbridge are the children in question here, Boj

Not all summerborn children need to be held back... However it needs to be made easy to do so for those children who do need it.

Or should they just toughen up...?

I personally would only do it if I knew the child would benefit. My DDs 21 and 13 (both summer born) were early starters, very keen learners and have always been at the top end of top sets regardless. In fact, I think to keep them back a year would not have been beneficial to them at all. My DS who's 5 is winter born and is fine because of it but would have struggled if expected to go to school when just 4. I think I would only hold a child back if I had concerns.

ACatCalledDave - I thought all children were in question here, including those who went to Oxford. The OP does not say her DC is struggling, she says her DC is "a bright little thing" so boj's comments are equally as relevant as the next person's.

I'm in Scotland and deferred a February-born. It was far less about academic ability and much more about confidence and social ability. What I didn't do when I was considering it was think only about P1. We are now further up the school and I can see definite differences in social maturity between the oldest and the youngest.

When I was getting advice, the primary teachers were very much saying it depends in the child. In contrast, secondary teachers all said boys should always be deferred as they see a big difference in their ability to sit and concentrate for study/exams between those that hit exams at 15 versus 16. Of course there will be exceptions but Oxbridge admits proportionally less summer borns too.

I would say you can send your summer born child to reception at compulsory school age already. You just need to be in the right LA (Liverpool, Devon, Hertfordshire or Southwark amongst them) for this to do without stress of the bureaucratic hoop jumping or be prepared for a fight elsewhere...

Legally speaking summer born children can start school after then turn compulsory school age on 31 August after their 5th birthday. It is the decision of their parents and nobody else. Then, legally speaking, the parents can ask the admission authority to admit the child into the reception class. The right to ask is there in the current legislation. Reception is legally defined as the entry class to the primary education. School admissions code is clear that this decision about the year group must be taken with no other consideration but the child's best interest. Given that there is absolutely no evidence that it is in the child's best interest to miss a whole year of learning opportunities against parental wishes and plenty of evidence that missing a whole year of education is detrimental. The same school admissions code says the admission authority must give clear reasons for their decision. They never are able to give "clear reasons" why year 1 and not the reception is the best entry point (because it is never in the childs best interest), so if parents take the complaints route as they are perfectly entitled to (it is the appeals route that is closed to these cases) they are invariably win as the LAs have no leg to stand on.

And just a few other points... SEN - there is plenty of research (Squires in particular) to show that summer born children are over identified by teachers as SEN, especially where MLD are concerned. When multi-professional assessments are carried out the summer birth effect is no longer evident. So, no, summer born children do not have higher instances of SEN, but it is a fact that their relative difficulties in completing tasks just because they are the youngest in the class are often attributed to SEN rather then their age.

There is also very interesing research by Tammy Campbell on summer born children and ability grouping,which demonstrates that often summer-born effect is compounded by this teaching practice.

Lastly, by now, I know from personal experience that vast majority of parents of summer born children don't see an issue.

Does anyone know how it works in private schools?
My friend moved her daughter who is 20th august to be the eldest in the next year group.
She is in year 1 now but technically should be in y2?
For 7+ or 11+ exams would she have to do them a year early?

Do you have to be born in the 1 Sep-31 August year for these exams or does it not matter?

She did not give it much thought in reception but now is wondering if she will be affected a few years down the line?

many thanks