Delayed start does not help summer borns?

[catkind]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44155068

www.gov.uk/government/publications/summer-born-children-school-admission

Is there a thread about this yet?
I'm thinking it's a dodgy conclusion to draw. The delayed group are selected for being less ready for school. In practice that could well mean less able or less mature in some way. Which is kind of proved by them still achieving below non summer borns - if it was just down to age they should be highest achieving in their delayed class. So actually the fact they do achieve in line with average non delayed summer borns is better than same kids would have achieved without the delay.

Tom
Then imagine yourself accepting the recognised and documented disadvantages of being youngest.
10% less chance of uni.
X % not achieving eyfs writing.
Less chance at sport achievement.
Lower gcse and alevel results.
Starting at only 4/5 of the age of eldest.

I do agree yes there are ones across the age group. But that maybe one other August born who may be a girl or may be advanced or a younger sib, or extremely tall.

Imagine your dc going a year earlier. Were they maybe struggling with doing buttons/zips. Writing. Counting in 2s, 5s 10s etc. Did they know number bond to 10 at 4yo? All their phonic sounds by 4.3yo and writing all the letters. Sitting still for performances. Not running off on school trips. Happy to separate and go into new environment with 30 kids to 1 adult with even the 5yo needing and getting help, while teacher tries to teach.

For some people it's about it being 4yo as that is too young.
Others it's that the kid is already starting behind in whatever aspect and that may only get worse. Or cause the child to lose confidence.
12m is a lot, but as i say it is likely that most delayed rather than being say a May child who is then 5m ahead of the class, that they will fall into the main group.
I know a children who have repeated and they are not then (yet anyway) top of the class.
If people choose to then delay an advanced child that is another matter. However there is nothing to say that a sept born is not genuinely advanced, and they could be 12m advanced say and look incredibly bright because at start of yr r that would be like being start of yr 1 level. (Whereas a aug born would only be top of yr R if that.)
Some kids dont walk till 2yo or talk till 3yo. PT till 4yo. Drop naps till 4yo. Go to nursery till term after 3yo.
So Sept born could be walking before Aug is born (some even for say 3m). But approx 4yrs walking before school. An Aug born walking at 24m would only be walking 2years.

But isn’t the report saying that deferring isn’t helping the progress of these children? We do not know what progress they might have made had they not deferred. We don’t know if they had a higher than average SEN. It may be that their progress will always be slow.

If you have your child at home for longer then you thought, it costs. School is free. Of course it’s a middle class choice. The stats seem to bear this out. Others probably don’t even think about doing it. They just want the children in school.

What is the evidence that deferring is going to improve everything naty lists? It seems unlikely.

Bubbles, the report kind of implies that deferring does not help SB's progress, but it does not have any basis for making that claim.

It has no basis for making any claim as to if/how deferring would help (or not) SB children.

For now, the vast majority of SB children are still in their 'correct' cohort, starting reception in the term beginning after their 4th birthday.

Very few parents even consider deferring their child's start. Of those that do, many discard the idea right away due to costs (additional year of childcare). For those for whom these costs don't matter, they continue to consider if deferring is actually in their child's best interest, seeing as it is not the 'done thing', the child would be in a very small minority, things are unclear regarding progression into next school stages/entrance exams/ what about moving area/moving schools?
If they still consider deferring, it is usually because their child is by all accounts simply not ready for school.
So only a small proportion of SB parents will even apply for deferral, and this will not be a random selection of all SBs - it will be those SBs who are significantly behind even their fellow SBs (in development), and whose parents can afford childcare costs.
Then of these, only a % of applications will be approved. In many councils, only those applications will be approved where there is professional evidence supporting the parents' view that the child is significantly behind their SB peers (developmentally). At age 3, not many will have that professional evidence, even if they ARE significantly lagging in their development. Only the 'worst cases' e.g. global developmental delay are likely to be able to provide such evidence.

So in effect, of the SB children studied in this report, only those did defer who were VERY behind (developmentally; on average).

So the report is comparing 'very behind' SB children to 'average-advanced' SB children. And finding that with the help of deferring, the 'very behind' SB children can (on average) keep up with their one year younger but 'average-advanced' SB peers (but still be at the bottom of the class/much worse than the average autumn borns)

It tells us nothing about what it would have been like for average-advanced SBs if they had deferred. Would that have improved their results? If the cut-off where in April (so effectively ALL SB 'deferred') would there be a new oldest-youngest statistical difference, this time comparing March borns with April borns? Presumably so, but we don't know, the report doesn't address this question.

Also it tells us nothing about what would have happened if the 'very behind' SBs had NOT deferred. It tries to imply that they would have achieved the same as 'average-advanced' SBs but that is a misleading implication lacking any basis in evidence. They do not have the data to make this conclusion.

I believe in Scotland they have a well ran system and it is more common

They do. A study there showed that a delayed start was damaging to summer borns.

It was only one study and only covered the first few years of the child's school life so I wouldn't regard it as definitive. But the conclusion was that, by the end of KS1, summer born children who deferred lagged behind summer born children who had not deferred despite the fact that both groups were performing at the same level before entering school.

So this latest study points in the same direction - a delayed start may not be the right solution to helping summber born children. I would still say it is not enough to be definitive. More research is needed.

it will be those SBs who are significantly behind even their fellow SBs (in development)

Not sure what the evidence is for that in England. The evidence in Scotland is that this is not true. There is no difference in development between those summer borns that defer and those that do not.

f you are saying that despite cutoff moving the SB are still doing worse then effectively the cutoff does need to be moved because they are being doubly penalised.

However i feel sure it's likely the data/assumptions are inaccurate.
How could you know deferred kids are not delayed. That would require testing baseline even when they dont start for a year.
Also if all SB equivalents are defferes then who are they comparing it to?

f you are saying that despite cutoff moving the SB are still doing worse then effectively the cutoff does need to be moved because they are being doubly penalised

No. I am saying that, based on the Scottish study, moving the cutoff penalises summer born children. They are better off if they do not defer. However, as I said, this is only one study so should not be treated as conclusive.

How could you know deferred kids are not delayed. That would require testing baseline even when they dont start for a year

That is exactly what the Scottish study did. It assessed summer born children at the normal time of entry into education. It assessed them again at the end of KS1. The study found that those who had deferred entry into education performed worse than those who had not. Looking back at their performance at the time originally tested, it found that there was no difference between the performance of those who had deferred and those who had not.

Based on the BBC link above, this report isnt convincing me that a school delay doesn’t help summer born pupils.

My main doubts are around which children defer. I suspect that the deferred group, who haven’t done as well in the tests as the non-summer born pupils, is likely to include a disproportionate number of children who have SEN or other issues affecting learning. So not comparing like with like IYSWIM.

DS1 had a deferred entry to Reception in 2016. He was a premature August born baby, has ASD and was not at all mature enough to cope with starting school at just turned 4. He was much more able to cope with a school environment at just turned 5.

I know a few other children who’ve deferred a year, and all of them have some sort of issue that would affect their ability to cope and learn in school. The ones I know in DS1’s year group who’ve also deferred are a child with severe developmental delays, a child who was born 3 months prematurely and has problems with sight and hearing on top of some learning difficulties, and an adopted child who’s parents felt that he needed more time before starting formal school because he’d missed out on a lot before the adoption.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn that DS1 and these other children I know haven’t been achieving the same level as an average autumn born child a few weeks or months younger than them.
But I’m convinced that DS1 is achieving a heck of a lot better than he would have done if he hadn’t been deferred. Same is likely true for many other deferred children.

The quote below from the BBC article is one I fully agree with:

Pauline Hull, of the Summer Born Campaign which has called for more flexible admissions, welcomed the report but said "the most important comparison is how much better these children are faring having started school at age five, rather than age four, and the DfE research does not address this.

Does the Scottish study take things like SEN and disabilities into account?

E.g. are children with SEN more likely to be deferred, and if that is the case, is it adjusted for when they’re looking at results of how deferred pupils perform compared to non-deferred pupils?

Does the Scottish study take things like SEN and disabilities into account

Yes.

This was peer reviewed research so there are no obvious holes in it. That doesn't mean it was right, of course.

prh47bridge do you have a link/name/authors for this study? Would be interesting.
The only study I am aware of that often gets bandied about here does have major flaws. It took deferred and non-deferred children, then measured their outcomes at the same age (7 or 8 I think it was) and found that non-deferred children scored better on certain tests than non-deferred children. Which is kind of obvious, since they had a year's worth more schooling. It did not look at how the deferred children scored on the same test after the same time in school. So basically as if the deferrers were made to sit KS1 SATS in Y1 and then - surprise, surprise - they scored worse than non-deferred children who sat them in Y2. (I think this study used European data - German? IIRC)

Yes, there is 'evidence' that in England, in the population studied for this report, the deferred SB children are not 'equal' to the non-deferred. Simply by the fact that the majority of councils require significant evidence from professionals of precisely a major delay or significant needs, before they grant deferral.
This might of course change if parental choice were all that was needed, but the SBs compared in the present study are not 'equal'. They are not comparing like with like.
Even more it would be of interest to see that Scottish study you mention.

I'm afraid not. It used to be on the Scottish government's website but it seems to have been removed and I don't have the details. Sorry.

I read my native country's parenting site regularly, and never really encounter the disadvantage of children younger in the year. Maybe because the start age of the school is older.
But just wondered, it must work better, if the summer born child started a year later, since they get same advantage of children born in Autumn. But if they defer for few terms, so miss the few terms they should be in school and start part way, then the disadvantage could be significant?
This happens everywhere in the world , but it maybe more significant problem in England since they start school earlier. But cut off line have to be somewhere. There will always be older/ younger child in year group.

Redshirting is known and argued about in North America, although it would be mostly "end of year borns" or something due to them mostly having a calendar year cut off.

So I don't think we can say it's an exclusively England thing.

I can't help thinking the NHS should put posters up in GP's surgeries warning people not to ttc in November - that'd solve all this!

Bridge the study that was on the Scottish Government website was flawed in that it compared kids who'd been deferred vs kids who hadn't by getting them to sitting the same tests at the same time.

Doesn't take a genius or a study to tell me that kids who are born in February 2010 currently in P3 will not be as advanced as those currently in P4.

What I would like to see the results of is a study where you test the deferred group a year later.

But no matter what, some children are "ready" for school at 4 and some just aren't. So your not really comparing like with like. Ethically can't exactly take a group of 4 year olds who don't appear ready and put some into school to do a study on them.

In Scotland around 25% of January babies, 50% of February babies defer and a small percentage of December babies. It's fairly even split across all economic groups.

We didnt really have a choice ttc - - icsi. For dc2 we did one in jan which would have been a nov baby but it didnt work. Then aug only like 3 eggs and a hydrocele so cancelled. Ended up with oct and a jul baby. I couldnt wait as they dont do ivf over xmas and already had an unsuccessful jan one...

**

I can't help thinking the NHS should put posters up in GP's surgeries warning people not to ttc in November - that'd solve all this**

I think someone must have done this by me. Class of 30. 28 birthdays between September to March. My DS is end of July. Apparently summer born makes ‘no difference’ according to his teacher. Sadly the view isn’t uniform as I just found out most of his class will join the beavers this September. He can’t join until next year . Same with swim class. On the one hand this is first world problems. On the other hand it’s symptomaric of how a number of factors conspire against summer borns to disadvantage them.

the study that was on the Scottish Government website was flawed in that it compared kids who'd been deferred vs kids who hadn't by getting them to sitting the same tests at the same time

Not the one I saw. It compared both at the end of KS1, so those who deferred were tested a year later than those who had not.

Not a study; my close friends son started school as the youngest in the class two months past the usual cut off.
He never caught up physically (tiny statured fellow) and his maturity remained well below his classmates. His mother regrets him having started and wishes she had held him back (it was a one year trial that was not continued as all the youngsters that were started early did dismally). Friendship issues and immaturity (class clown behaviour) prevailed into secondary school. Knew he was the worst in sports for his year group throughout.

DH was a premie August born and he started school when he had just turned four. He struggled throughout, didn’t get it and hated always being he youngest as he never got picked for teams. He was also the last one to celebrate his birthday in his class. Scrapped a few a-levels together and went to uni, that is when it all clicked - at 19.

Fast forward a few decades and we had twins on his birthday. I kept an open mind about school but when we had to apply it was very obvious that emotionally and developmentally our two were not ready. They rarely made friends at nursery with kids due to go to school the following year and just gravitated towards the younger cohort. We started asking about the process and when the offers came out that is when we decided to ask for delayed entry into Reception and were successful.

The nursery were not allowed to give an opinion in our application but when it was all confirmed they said it was the best decision for our two. A year on and they are confident independent children who actually talk about going to school. The difference is huge.

At work I have been accused of being a white middle class parent who could afford to pay the nursery fees for an extra year and hence playing the system so my kids got ahead. I just did it because I felt my kids were not emotionally ready and still had a lot of growing up to do compared to their peers.

Time will tell, but I feel most parents will know their children well enough to make the call. We were lucky that our LA were so good about it but friends in neighbouring LAs have not been. Some of their summer born children have thrived and others have not (one has already been named a class disruption because he has a short concentration span!).

Sample size is small tbh. I know not many delay but would like to see research over longer period.

Don’t have sex over Christmas too. That puts due date mid sept.

I agree with delayed entry for kids born prematurely which is why they are out of year. Those kids aren't starting on level terms. Not happy about it for other kids.

It's extremely common in USA, even though seems like any Difference evens out by late teens if not much earlier

I'm delaying my summerborn because starting school at 4 is ridiculous.