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.

Witchend my August DS found reception a similar experience. He didn't learn hardly anything academically (because he could do most of the expected things already). He spent most of his time playing with dinosaurs - wouldn't ever choose anything different. It was loud and he struggled with the lack of structure, and with unwritten rules, and with the low level of supervision (most of the time the majority of kids would be doing 'unsupervised' free play whilst the teacher and TA worked with a small group) leading to social problems. Y1 was a lot better socially, more structure, clearer rules, he excelled at behaving and a lot less social friction. But equally, it was a lot more boring, as he spent a large part of his day doing prescribed activities that involved a lot of sitting down and very little challenge/learning (for him).

But these are questions of the quality of the setting. A good quality setting should be able to cater to the able but immature summer born as well as to the struggling, quiet autumn born. Should realise that play-based learning need not = lack of structure and high levels of noise. Because this in fact is to the detriment of all children, not just the summer born ones.

To pick up on one specific point: I don't think the expectations (for YR, at least) are a whole year out of sync: more like 2 months.

In YR they're working towards the end of EYFS, where the goals are based on a child aged 60 months (5 years). Therefore, when final EYFS assessment is made in early July, only the very youngest children are not yet 5 years old? 'Expected' level is therefore appropriate for almost all children, and in good schools the activities in YR should also therefore be appropriate.

To make the expectations match the age of the youngest children, they'd only need to change the EYFS goals to make it for 4 years 10 months (or change the minimum age for starting YR 4 years 2 months).

But ginmummy, why then do so few April-August born children actually meet the standards? They are 58-63 months old. But a huge number of them don't achieve a 'good level of development'. (Google Early Years Outcomes for government statistics on this)

That means that the expectations for 60 months old children are so high that a large part of (more or less) 60 months old children don't get there.
Which means that the expectations for 60 months old children are wrong, IMO, rather than that a large part of children are 'below where they ought to be'. (I understand of course, unlike certain people in government, that not everyone can be above average; but this is not about averages, it is about meeting age appropriate expectations. There are always some that don't meet expectations, but IMO if it is more than, say, 20%? then the expectations are inappropriate. Oh and as it happens, about that amount of Autumn Born Children achieve GLD...)

brilliotic, I was trying to refute the point that Reception is geared at 5-y-os: it’s not, because the attainment target is based on a 60-month-old child (not an end of YR child).

If all children were assessed on EYFS goals during the week they turn 5 (there’s an idea!), I wonder what the statistics would show?

If the majority weren’t meeting these expectations, it would indeed suggest that the expectations are unrealistic.

If it still showed that summer-borns were behind at 60 months old, that would be very interesting indeed.

Just looking at the post for Kent 11+ applicants and somethings has struck me
September is well known to be a high birth month (something. To do with xmas and new year!) as well as lots of parents deliberately aiming for a Sep/Oct born child when conceiving so the stats are ALWAYS going to show more September/Oct born applying as thee are naturally more of them!
You really need to look at it as a percentage of each month.

Far fewer summerborns get into Oxbridge or RG unis too.
I think I said this up the thread, but this is true. I went to Oxbridge and personally of those I knew a lot more than there should be were September and October birthdays. However I am also aware that a significant number of those I was aware of were actually from the year, or sometimes two years, below, so actually younger than the summer borns.
If I assume that the number was similar in proportion to those I knew and separate that out, the September and October borns are slightly less than the number of July and August borns.

So this implies that there's more to it than simply age. I've wondered before whether there is something in the way the body grows that means the brain develops better if there is an autumn birthday- like some animals if they have a baby born at the beginning or end of the breeding season it doesn't on average do as well.

I think there is huge scope for research here. However I don't think a knee jerk reaction of let the summer borns defer is necessarily the correct one. From my experience, not all parents will do what's right for their child in that respect. Not out of maliciousness or anything but simply lack of knowledge, financial reasons, what other parents/friends are doing etc.

From my point of view, I would definitely have deferred ds, and in year R it would have been better for him, I'm sure. However he's now year 6, and I'm sure it would have been the wrong decision for him long term. You can't do anything about that.

Ginmummy, I think I'm not being clear :) because that is just what I am saying...
If all children were assessed on EYFS goals during the week they turn 5 (there’s an idea!), I wonder what the statistics would show?

Well the 'summer born' children are assessed on EYFS goals at age 58-63 months, so not exactly within the week they turn 5, but near enough - from -2 to +3 months. So look at the statistics for summer borns. They have improved in recent years, when I checked a couple of years ago IIRC it was something like 55% now IIRC it's more like 60%. With similar percentages for boys (over the whole year). Meaning that it will be around half, or less, of summer born boys (let's say, of 60 months old boys give or take) that do achieve GLD.

The Autumn Born children in contrast are assessed on EY outcomes at age 5+6 months - 5+10 months and the numbers of them that achieve GLD seems a lot more in line with appropriate expectations. So to me it seems that the expectations for '60 months olds' should rather be called expectations for 68 months olds.

What is needed is the results of the sep borns entry to yr r to compare to aug born in aug. The aug should be better. However everything is weighted against them.
1 yr less at home with only 3 terms nursery. So at 4 yo they are stuck with a ratio of 1:30 (15) as opposed to 1:8 or 1:1/1:2.
Aug born are actually taller so its unlikely fetal development. Also i would have thought scotland show a different pattern.
Why is 1:30 inappropriate for sep born but fine for aug and they are expected to have a level of independence.

Also the aug borns are probably doing very well for age really as if say most sep-born are yellow-green at end of yr R i would think most aug born are above this when they get to the same age when in yr 1.
They should see how able the sep borns are at following the harder phase 5 phonics at just turned 5.

Eyfs is actually very odd as above it is all based on age until you try to box it into the 12m spread of school. No kids i know could read, write sentences etc starting yr R.
Also sep born have had the higher nursery ratios to do the paperwork to get them to met/exceeded.
I think if independently assessed the aug borns would look a lot closer to some targets, it is that they are being directly compared to 12m older kids in the class so teacher is thinking ah but they dont always do as told and if im giving xyz met then they have to be not met.

I have a summer born DD and in every area - academics (pencil control, writing, drawing), confidence, stage presence, body control, sport - I've seen a huge difference between autumn & summer horns. Esp in KS1. Not just my DD but her classmates and other friends children too. It has gradually got better in KS2 as they realise their strengths and catch up in some ways. Now in year6 and I can see HOW MUCH she's improved since her 10th birthday this summer...while her classmates may have hit those milestones last year!!! For 11plus they do give weighted scores so clearly it still needs adjustments.
Schools say they are 'aware' but that does not equalise opportunities for the summer borns who miss out on many things because they were 'less prepared' than the autumn born.

Second DD was deliberately planned for autumn for this reason alone.

i have a summer born boy-middle/end of august

academically it has never held him back-he's just getting target grades for gcses and they are all 7,8 and 9

however when he was younger his teachers thought he was very sensitive but he was just young and i had to remind them of this sometimes. He found the hurly burly of the playground a little overwhelming at times.

I'm a summer born and so is my mum and we have two summer born boys although one is April. Luckily in my son's class there are 14 younger than him, but maybe 6+ kids born in September so a funny spread but weighted to a younger class.

I work for a school and see their stats. I don't care so much if he meets the GLD although I'd love him to. They assess them again in Y1 and by Y3 are complaining that the 'high achievers' from eyfs don't have much self sufficiency and then talent and ability shines through in later years.

I was always ahead academically despite various challenges but I think largely because of being able to develop free thinking and learning, I wasn't trained in the way they train kids these days.

Stats for September births are funny, if you're the sort of person to really want a September baby maybe you're the sort of person that pushes your kid to go to Oxford. I'm all for academic excellence but an Oxbridge educworth ation isn't the be all and end all.

For what it's worth I was supposed to be am October baby but was born 10 weeks early.

DD is January born and I don't think she's as 'advanced' as her august born older brother was when he was in Year 3. His age has definitely never held him back academically, but I am a little worried about him going away for his first residential trip with the school in a few weeks; the 11 year old Sept born kids 'look' a lot older and I hope he's as ready as them to be away from home (I'm sure all parents worry about their first time away, though!!).

Haha just noticed my phone didn't like my typing of education! I do know how to spell it despite my birth month ;)

Although my dd does fine academically, it certainly affected her socially, how she was viewed by the class and affected self esteem. This continued until year 6. It improved when she went to secondary with a new set of kids.

My son was young (selective primary). I presume they do make some allowance and do not want everyone who is born only in the Autumn in every class. It does even out originally. I did fairly well at school and was very very young for the class, out of year range even but that was secondary level.

People do deliberately try to conceive babies to be born in the Autumn though. I know someone who has managed that with their 2.

I know someone who's done that too. I might have done it if I'd not had fertility issues

Dd has always seemed a bit young for her age even without being young for her year as well. Now she is 13 there are advantages to that, especially as her friends are similar to her.

People keep talking about this but I feel it's all been said. Yes when they are in reception a year is a lot. DS2 is the 2nd youngest child in his reception year and the 2nd smallest however his reading and social skills are as good as any of them.
I was a year ahead at school so when I was 7 (yr 3) I went into yr4. I was shorter than some of my friends but academically within a year it made no difference.
Personally I wouldn't waste any more time thinking about this. Whether your child is struggling or not is another issue. Someone has to be the youngest.

Research in 2013 found you were 12% more likely to get to oxbridge if you were September er born than August born. But this is only 1 element and others e.g. home environment, intelligence etc will play greater roles.
DS1 is top of his year along with his chum who is also April born. I am a governor so have seen all their KS1 results ;-). The lowest group who did not pass (excluding those with Sen, long term sick, absent etc) were skewed towards the august born but then of them I would say 1 her parents don't play any role in her education and another is badly behaved (site parenting who again don't take any time to read with him etc) so he's mostly in detention rather than learning anything... The 2nd bottom group is mostly autumn children who's parents aren't that fussed about education.
What I've concluded since my children started primary is the most important factor is how much interest the parents take. This is more important than educational level of the parents, wealth or birth month.

Off topic, but i didn't realise governors could see all the kids' results

As a governor, we never see the actual names of kids alongside resyktssonits completely anonymous.

eh? * results so it's completely anonymous!

Ok thanks, i got the impression from Dazed's post that it wasn't.