holding children back a year

[royalair]

I've heard some mums in our toddler group recently saying that they would like to hold their summer born children back a year when it comes to starting school. None of these children seem overly young for their age (to me anyway) and have no special needs and seem emotionally and socially good. I can't help but think it's simply so they can have children who are 'the best' in terms of academic and sporting ability. My own children are summer born but I think they will benefit from being with older children when it's their turn to go to school rather than being the oldest by some months than everyone else.

Also I wonder if other parents (perhaps me included) might be a bit annoyed if a child who starts school a year later for example wins all sports day events simply because they are physically the strongest (ok so I'm competitive too!). And am I being naive never to have thought it necessary to hold my children back a year?

Sounds like me eyeofthestorm- never an athlete .
I wonder though how do you know if they are ready or not especially if child is a first born? I understand children with special needs may need to be placed in a different year but if a parent is thinking of this when their child is 2 then I do wonder at their motivation for doing so.

My child was born at the end of August, he was also born 16 weeks early. This means that going by his "corrected age" (ie due date) of mid-December, he will be up to 15 months younger than some of his classmates.

I believe that the rules have changed recently to allow people in similar circumstances to delay school entry by a year, but when they do start they go into reception (rather than year 1).

We have not made definite plans yet, we're going to see how he's doing developmentally when he's 3, then make a decision on deferment (or not) then.

And I wouldn't feel guilty at all about doing this as if he'd been born full term he'd be well into the younger year group

My son was a premature August baby. Was due end of sept so would've been one of the oldest in his year but ended up being one of the youngest. He was more than ready for school despite being only just 4 and he has always been top of the class for most subjects. Another boy in his year was kept back and he suffered terribly at the hands of bullies saying he was stupid cos he was kept back a year. He struggled to fit in and eventually left and went to a college for troubled teenagers.

brokenbone that's terrible. I would worry about that too that a child who is held back might be a target for being different and then how would they fit into outside school activities that go on age? would they miss out on activities with their class group.

Itscurtainsforyou I can see why you would be thinking of it. I would think about it too if child was born prematurely.
I think it's where the parent has no evidence that the child won't do well simply based on month of birth that doesn't sit easy with me. Maybe naively I presume school will cater for all kids within the cohort? And would the very oldest get less attention based on the assumption they should be ahead of the pack anyway.

It's down to individual children not their birthdays. DD is August. Very mature and coped fine with school from day one.

Lol at an adult thinking she is more mature than another adult born 11 months later.

I have dalayed my aug born daughter who has no sn. She will begin this coming sept at 5y1m. She was not remotely ready for school last year (and she was 3 when i was having to decide ffs!) This year she is a different child and totally ready. I am thrilled with our decision. Anyone who thinks i did it for competitive reasons is daft and i think it says a lot more about them than it does about me.

I think it's quite rare that a child gets held back because their parents feel they should. There's usually more to it - some SEN or something like that. DS2 was premature as well and it moved him from a September baby with no problems to a July baby with problems.

My older DC are summer babies and while I did think my oldest - July boy - seemed really young to be starting school, he wasn't so different to everyone else given the range at that age.

I think it's something people talk about when they have summer babies/toddlers because they do seem so young/little compared to other children up to a year older. But as they grow, things change. I doubt any of the mums at the play group will really delay their children.

eyeofthestorm you've put it very well.
I do think if a child is to be held back then the parent will always think it was the right thing as the child will be a year older anyway and therefore they will say they are more mature, more ready, but they may have developed in the very same way if sent to school as normal.

I think my original point is that I can see where there are special needs/circumstances then it should be considered but I do wonder if some parents with the advantage of knowledge/financial resources are holding their children back simply so they won't be the youngest. But that just shifts the 'youngest' label to another child and if everyone did that wouldn't the system for preschool etc all fall apart. Could we then hold children back two years? I think I'm just a bit surprised (wondering am I not being proactive enough?!) that I would never have thought to work outside the system that exists and think I could change the rules. I'm not saying the rules are perfect but just that if we don't work with the system and our child then won't it have a knock on effect for other children/less fortunate children.

And how would parents of the then youngest in the class feel knowing a 'held back' child was potentially 15 months older than their child?

This happens all the time in Scotland, but it's called deferring, not "holding back". The youngest child starting school this August in Scotland would have turned 4 on 28th February, so will be 4 and half. Parents of children born in January or February often defer their children so that they are 5yrs and up to 7 and a bit months when they start. Children who are born in November/December are also sometimes deferred, but this is less common.

It is VERY usual to have children in the class who, for example, turn 6 in the first week of January along with children who aren't 5 until the end of February. My daughter has two children in her class with the same birthday, a year apart.

It really isn't an issue at all and I wouldn't see why it would be in England either. It's not about children being the "best" academically although there is strong evidence that English summer borns on average do less well, it's more about waiting until the child is emotionally and physically mature enough to cope with school.

I too am interested in what they are going to do at secondary transfer - are they thinking the LA will just let them go to secondary when they want ?
Before we even get into those who might want to sit grammar school tests.

I'm in Scotland too and deferred both my November born DS's. No reason other than 5 seeming too young. I don't feel any guilt about it, I just made the decision based on what was best for my own DC.

And yes they are 15 months older than the youngest so maybe some parents get annoyed about it but the oldest in the year (of children not deferred) will be a year older anyway - do people get annoyed about that? No, they don't. Those 3 months aren't going to make a whole lot of difference.

I think in Scotland where its permitted then a parent couldn't be annoyed at age variation because that option is there for all younger children. Its more so where out of potentially 30 children who are the 'correct' age group and one child isn't I find strange. I don't think I'd want my child to stand out as potentially different. And I suppose in all honesty I would be slightly miffed if my child was seeing a child 15 months older then him achieving things easier and then losing his confidence.

Exactly - my oldest child has a birthday in the first week of Marc so was 5.5 when he started school. Deferred children born in January or February were just a few weeks older than him.

It's very unlikely that you'll have a class in England made up of 29 children born in September/October and one born in July/August.

It really is not a big deal under the Scottish system, some people defer, some don't, they base their decisions on the needs of their individual child. Deferred children don't "stand out" because they are just a few weeks older than the oldest non-deferred child.

A lot of my Dd's friends have birthdays 6-8 weeks after her. If she had been born late she would have been in the younger year group anyway. Everyone else due on my due date gave birth on the 2nd of March. I was the only one to be early in January.

I think Scotland don't blink about it as it is common. We have 3 deferring for an extra year in nursery next year.

My friend has successfully got her council to agree to deferring down the Scottish route in England. But it's taken a fight as she's had to battle to get them to agree.

Oh and I have listened to the rant of one mother about a child being deferred and how wrong it was within my son's year. She asked my opinion and I replied "well seeing as I did the same with Dd, I can't really be against what that parent has done!" She stopped moaning after that.

My currently 3 year old is due to start school in September. I have agonised over this but in the end I am sending him as he seems as ready as my older Ds was (he was almost 5 when he started as born in October).

Also, DS is desperate to go to school, like his brother, so he'd be very upset if I held him back. His brother will be at secondary school next year.

If DS struggles, I will do what my friend did with her son who was born on 31st August. She pulled him out when it became clear he was struggling, and reapplied for the following year. He is now back with the same class again as had to start in year 1, but is doing brilliantly. He just wasn't ready emotionally at 4, whereas my DS seems to be. I may be proved wrong though!

I've been thinking a lot about this as I have a 3 year old and 2 year old, both June babies and both with different special needs. Preschool are encouraging me to defer my 3 year old so starting school in September 2018 instead of 2017. I'm not sure about it as he will be in the same class as his younger brother unless I defer him too.

IMO, it may benefit summer born to delay in early years/ks1.
But in the long run, it may not.
My ds is is in yr3. Yes, the children in the top table were mostly autumn/winter borns in ks1. But in yr3, they are really mixed up. A lot of older children can't keep up with younger ones progressing quickly.
A lot of summer borns are bigger than autumn borns now.
I think you really need to think carefully before holding child back, it really depend on the child.

A lot depends on the individual child.

DS1 is August born. He was born early, at 34 weeks, so would have been in the next academic year if born at full term.

I was concerned about how he would cope starting Reception just after his 4th birthday, because I was worried that he wasn't mature enough, but started him in Reception in the "correct" year group anyway.

Within weeks we were starting to be called into meetings with school because they were concerned about his behaviour and development and inability to cope in Reception. This culminated in school moving DS1 down into their nursery. He's coped much better there. But the school still have concerns about his development, suspect that he may have some sort of SEN, and as a result DS1 has been referred to a developmental paediatrician. This is all still ongoing, so no definitive answer yet on whether he has a SEN or is just immature for his age and needing a bit more time to catch up.

So, anyway, many summer born children do well and thrive in school. Their birth date alone isn't a reason to hold them back if they seem emotionally mature and ready in other ways.
But some summer born children, like DS1, don't cope. He may have had the same difficulties if he'd been born just later enough to be a September baby. But as it is, being held back a year seems to have been in his best interests so far, and frankly, wondering if I should feel guilty about him having an unfair advantage on sports day is just about the last thing I'm concerned about when it comes to his education.

Competitive edge? Don't know anyone considering it in order to gain "competitive edge". I happen to be from another country and feel it is bonkers to send to school a few weeks after turning 4.

It is not "holding back " either. The child starts at compulsory school age and admissions authorities have to make a decision whether it is in the best interest of the child to be forced to skip a year worth of education (any year) against parental wishes. Incidentally, there is absolutely no evidence that skipping a year is in the child's best interest, quite on contrary.

In any case, why would anybody be concerned about another child?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=iUum1w8s5ew

When people say a lot of country doesn't start school until later, do they think about what those children doing before start school?
In my country, the school age is 6/7. But by then, children are expected to sit nicely, listen to instructions,take care of themselves, write, read and count basics. They are done in kindergarden. I think English reception and yr1 is almost similar to kindergarden in my country. They are still allowed to act like a child.
Expectation of start of school is very high in my country, obviously due to age.

Gosh not concerned about other child as such, only thought that maybe I wasn't concerned enough that my own children are summer born & it never occurred to me to hold them back. I wondered if I was being a little non proactive - if that's a word?!
The ladies in my toddler group were talking about holding back their already summer born kids and any potential summer borns so that's why I thought on what basis- perhaps competitive.

Irvines comment is v interesting about what constitutes active schooling and calling something kindergarten doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't involve formal learning albeit through play.
Anyway this has all stimulated my interest in the pros & cons of keeping children at home a year longer than currently allowed in England without special needs.
for the poster who would end up with two kids in the one class that might be difficult on both kids unless they were in a composite class where it would be less obvious to the younger child. I guess the pre school teachers and early years teachers would be able to advise if it's a good idea or nod.