summer-born children

[rubo001]

Children born in August, July or June, are nearly 1 year younger than autumn-born children in their class. There is evidence that they lag behind the older children not only academically, but also in sport, and are more likely to be diagnosed ADHD or to be excluded from school. Any parents of summer-born children who have encountered problems because of this? I believe that the authorities are not dealing with it at all.

Both deferral and starting later doesn't seem likely to solve the problem, since the advantages of more time before starting will still exist.

You could have school with only 3 month bands, so four times as many school years, so everyone is a similar age, but that would just introduce silly small schools or excessive commuting.

So what other suggestions do people have? I fully agree with Lowdoorinthewal1 that extra for the younger is inappropriate, however I don't think this is actually how it is addressed in a good school, kids are just differentiated fully individually, but all disadvantages of which age is just one are tracked.

We did have the option to defer (redshirting it's known as here) - in our school system any child who will be in the youngest 3 months of the year can. I think it is great for parents to have the option but after talking to their nursery teacher we decided against it. Good article here educationnext.org/is-your-child-ready-kindergarten-redshirting-may-do-more-harm-than-good/ (us based but covers same issues).

to Laura0806: what does "standardising test scores" actually mean? If it means: raising the scores of summer born/reducing the scores of autumn born children, so as to produce an even distribution of high scores and low scores for each month, then it clearly isn't working if the selective schools have something to hide from us. Otherwise I agree with you.
to Hersetta427: the present system would be bad and unfair if there were only a (for example) 20% greater chance for a September-born child to get an A* in an exam, or pass his 11plus, or become school captain, than for an August-born child. But a 20% greater chance is not certainty, it doesn't mean that there will be no exceptional children such as your daughter (and well done to her!) who do well despite their birthmonth. If all results are supposed to be "standardised" then we have a right to expect that there will be no percentage difference at all when we compare the performances of summer born to those of autumn-born children.

It's not about "feeling" that my child is disadvantaged. He IS disadvantaged. The system does not work.

I don't know how to improve it, but it's definitely not working.

As for people deferring to get an advantage rather than remove the disadvantage - I know no one in real life who even considered deferring, everyone was raring to go. And the people I know online who did, or wanted to defer,seemed to be genuinely thinking of their own child's readiness.

I do think the current definition of summer born is too large though. But then you draw a new line and a new group gets upset and misses out.

The age range of 12 months between oldest/youngest in class is not the problem IMO. And even if it were, then extending that age range to 15 or 17 months clearly wouldn't be the solution!

Having a cut-off date at the end of August isn't the problem either. If it were, then moving the cut-off date to any other date would just be moving the problem to other children.

Having a 'school' start age of 'too young' at 4 IMO is not the problem either. In the US I understand they start later, and yet have the same discussions about the youngest being at a disadvantage. In contrast, in France kids go to the 'maternelle' from 3 but I haven't yet heard of any 'summer born' equivalent debates (which doesn't mean they don't exist, I'm not very clued up on France).

But clearly there IS a problem, and it is big enough of a problem that despite being recognised, and despite teachers/schools being held accountable for how well their summer born children are doing, the problem persists all the way through school/education.
IFS report 2007

(Statistically! My own late August born boy is doing well academically and socially in his older-than-average class. But the plural of anecdote is not data!)

So what is the problem? I think the problem is what happens to children when they start school. Whatever age they are, 3, 4, or 7 - if the 'curriculum', the format of learning, the structure of the day, and the achievement expectations match the children's developmental stage, then they will be alright.

In contrast, in our schools in England only about 2/3 of children achieve a 'good level of development' by the end of reception (this has improved in recent years from only just more than half). To me that says that the expectations for what is a 'good level of development' are too high.

By the time children go into Y1, the format of instruction (in most schools) becomes very 'school-ish' which is fine for mature 6 year olds perhaps, but not so for only-just-5yos (who may already be disadvantaged by having essentially 'missed' the whole of reception (despite attending) due to not having been ready).

KS1 SATS are meant to be a challenging test for 7 year olds (with standards having been raised from what was expected of 7 year olds before the 2014 curriculum) - but a full quarter of children sit them when they are still 6.

Later on we have things like the 11+ being sat by just-turned-10 year olds (or in some cases, by children who are still 9). Here I find it harder to argue that age alone explains the summer born disadvantage. More likely it is a cumulative affect of negative school/learning experiences.

So IMO the problem lies in the expectations, and the format of instruction, not being in line with the children's ages/stages. Or in other words, let the children learn through play throughout KS1, get rid of KS1 SATS, and adapt EYFS expectations to match the children's effective ages.
Or what this excellent opinion piece based on recent research argues, don't try to teach the children reading and writing before they have learned to talk and listen properly ...

It’s not just about the 12 month age gap, it’s about the fact that some of these children are only just 4yo. There’s a massive difference between a 4.0yo and a 4.3/4.6/4.8yo in terms of regular, every day development.

Forget about comparing them in terms of ability, the majority of 4.0yo just aren’t developed enough to be able to cope with school.

You would hardly put an 11mo in the same room as a 21mo at nursery, just because they are less than 12 months apart in age.

Children should need to meet certain milestones before they start school. Be able to dress themselves, sit and do an activity independently for 20 minutes, be able to hold on for toilet breaks etc. In theory we are allowed to make those judgements and hold them back but the reality is most councils and schools make it very difficult.

My youngest was born at the end of July. He's always had very good marks/reports from the school. I was checking this morning, he has A's in every class. He has no social problems either.

Good for him.

I think children should be tested wheather they’re rwady for school before starting. My son was born at the end of Augand he absolutely wasn’t ready. HE’s been strugglingfrom the beginning. He might catch up at some point but by that time he’ll have spent years in school knowing that he’s behind.... and that’s what I’m worried about the most

I was born late June and it did me no harm (early 80's)

I think the “born on the 32nd of August and I’m fine” stuff is irrelevant (and both me and DH were, fwiw). Statistically there is an impact. I’m not a teacher but instinctively I think the combination of school start age and possibly in consequence some children lacking the fundamental skills school requires of them (named by PP) is key to this.

In an ideal world (and with oodles of funding/resources) teachers would be permitted to provide additional support to all of those children who need it - including Summer borns. I'm sure many teachers wish they could.

Dd's Yr 1 class teacher has begun unofficially streaming the class so she can give more attention to those children that need it. All but one of the children in the group who are deemed to require less attention are Winter born. No surprises there then.

Oh Christ my wee one is a summer baby he is only 2 right now but I’m worried he will be behind the other kids in confidence alone on this fact. He is actually super smart and performing tasks well above his age but being emotionally equipped for nursery/school when it’s time I’m not so sure. Now to worry

It's very hard to know how statistics are going to relate to an individual.

I think the issue is around testing skills that are often developmental as well as taught and the tests being high stake tests.

My August boy is fine but I do find it absurd that he was classed as struggling to read in Y1 but his brother was classed as advanced in YR but they were the exact same level and the exact same age!

Rubo001-I meant more that the ages of the pupils are taken into account by comparing a pupil only with others of the same age (so july only with july (9 years 1 month and a January child only with January m (9 years 7 months). An older pupil may in fact gain a higher raw score than a younger pupil, but have a lower standardised score. This is because the older pupil is being compared with other older pupils in the reference group and has a lower performance relative to his or her own age group. I don't know how private schools work their 11+ but a lot of general reading tests etc do the above as do I think many state grammar schools 11+. However, it doesn't cancel out the effect of low self esteem early on which means summer borns may never get to the level of taking an 11+ for example. Obviously as you and I said there are always going to be those summer born babies that fly but Im not sure why people keep mentionning their summer born child as an example. I don't think anyone is saying no summer born child can do well but the AVERAGE summer born child does not fare as well as the AVERAGE winter born and I think this needs addressing. Therefore in SATS ( which should be scrapped anyway) and in any measure of a childs ability they should only be compared with children of the same age.

There was an amazing series on BBC radio 4 about this issue. Listen to it. Many of the responses from parents in the series are listed above. the conclusion was that there is institutional discrimination against summer borns. The statistics are compelling. The problem is the solution.

We have started our prem summer born twins at 5 as is allowed in the admissions code. The difference from 4 to 5 is huge. Yes, some children are okay, but others are not. I have witnessed it in my children's school.

As adults, we will say we were fine. But who really knows that our early childhood was like and how this influenced who we are.

The problem is
You let June, July and Aug children defer. This then becomes the norm.
That means that the following year (assuming all summer born defer) you then have jun/jul/aug as the oldest in the class then by default mar/apr/May are then the youngest in the class, they then want to defer, and so on and so on. There will ALWAYS be a 12 month age difference between the oldest and the youngest in a class, unless you start kids every 6 months and double the amount of classes in a school nothing is going to change the fact that someone is always going to be the youngest.
Yes it sucks if you have a summer born but there are things you can do with them at home to help.
I have a summer born (who is doing well) and 2 autumn/winter born who have struggles.

I think deferring should only be for the kids that have a significant delay.

We are in wales and the way do yearly tests and their results are then adjusted and compared to children ONLY born int he same month so too can then compare how well they are doing for thier actual precise age rather than thier whole year group.
It works well.

I have 2 girls.

1 born July, the other October.

Both are high achievers academically, A/A* levels all the way. Both are socially fine.

My July baby was less able sports wise until about Y4, but that was the only difference we noted.

We took it to be that academia was more important to us as a family so we pushed those aspects with both our girls, whereas sporting prowess was not, so we left that more to nature - so there was a difference based on age.

I have July & august boys.

With the august boy now year 5 yes definitely saw that he struggled and has seemed to be a year 'behind' until prob last year. More experienced teachers recognised it, unfortunately his reception teacher didn't and her solution was to pile in the homework so he could catch up!

2 child is in yr 1, biggest problem has been he's just not emotionally/ socially ready, he would be happier to nap every afternoon, has real confidence issues around going to the toilet, even though he was at preschool,

I think it is obviously going to have an effect. Even extra tiredness, illness, worse motor control.
Not sure why it persists to a levels even.
But i do think it is wrong for people with unaffected kids to argue vehemently against deferal when they dont have to daily see the affects.
My child lost all confidence on starting school. Their behaviour deteriorated. They got in trouble for stuff that would have been a lot more minor in nursery. They started biting their fingernails. Struggled with friendships, not invited to parties. Couldnt/wouldnt write.
Now at 5.3 they can actually form letters, but are having to unlearn all the wrong way they have been doing it.
Very few april parents would defer. They wouldn't want them to be so much older. And ideally it would be limited to say jun-aug excluding extreme prematurity. They are actually at the best position almost middle so any advanced or behind abilities would be least obvious.

Yes all the class are not sept born, however, there are more that end of the year.
I think part of the reason why they do less well is some end up in lower groups so they have to overtake (the older kids), but not only that, whilst in the bottom they are there with the distruptive children (who they may copy) and the older children who are struggling. Just more likely to get in the wrong crowd, plus immature.
Its very hard to change a school's opinion of you.
It would be interesting to see what sets starting secondary are like.
Once you are behind you have to do extra at another point.
Realistically teaching is a job and people want to do the least necessary. SB children are more work. More likely to be on naughty list.
I do think some elements of eyfs are difficult eg the number bonds. And because they focus on behaviours and the crap of not being able to ask what kids know doesnt help.
Maybe ringfenced funding for SB.
Of course all the focus on SB doing worse will lead to more being born.

• winter borns that is

My late summer born is in year 5. Not lagging academically at all but I do wonder just how far ahead he’d be if he’d been born 2 weeks later.

I did try to get his Reception year delayed but school wouldn’t even have the discussion. Academically he may be fine but socially he is a square peg in a round hole and at breaktimes he plays with kids in the year below. I know it will all sort itself out in time but it is heartbreaking to watch to be honest. I really wish he could have started a bit later, I think his experience of school would be so different.

I am bricking it about what will happen when he goes to secondary in a years time.

He may be the youngest in his year but he’s also the tallest - that will help at least.

BrieandChilli that sounds a good system!

My son turned (who is now just 6) 4 on the 28th of August the year he started foundation with no real knowledge of phonics. They race through phonics at the speed of light in foundation - not the schools fault necessarily just the way it is. They have a lot to get through. He struggled so much it was heartbreaking. Other children in the class would laugh at him because he didn't know certain words. I'm not attributing all of him struggling to him being a late summer baby but it was definitely a contributing factor. He's just started Y2 now and for the first time I'm noticing big strides in terms of his reading (writing and spelling still a struggle). I was very bright in primary school and picked up reading very quickly. I just assumed my children would be the same.