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.

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.
I find this interesting because it is different in NSW, Australia. January start with a 'turning 5 years old by the end of July' cut off but children born January to July can be deferred. Middle class areas have a noticeably older kindergarten cohort with almost all children starting the year they turn 6. The state of Victoria is similar with the problem pushed back 3 months (April cut off).

I am wondering what the difference is in Scotland, as I think it may be a positive step to allow deferrals in England if it works similarly, but not if it could end up how it has in Australia.

I guess its a bit self selecting. If you child is average or better you are less likely to consider keeping them back. If your child seems to be immature your more likely to keep them back.

Iceweasel
I think part of it might be all children get 15 hours preschool paid. January & Febuary babies are guaranteed to get that funding. So parents will act on the preschool advice on to or not to put children into school.

When I was making the decision a few years ago I really struggled to find any conclusive studies.
I found a lady with identical twins (20mins and the school cut of between them) who reconed that school was much easier on her younger child who started at 5 rather than the older one at 4 years.
I found was the youngest kids in England do 15% poorer in GCSEs than the oldest.
There was a Scandinavian study it was quite old maybe the 60's, that found the youngest kids in year did better in the work place, no mention of how it affected exam results. But Scandinavian kids don't go into proper school until 6 or 7.
I found teachers who felt we start kids far too young in the UK and some who aren't ready will spend years playing catchup.

One of the big arguments for starting kids in school later aged 6/7 is that the difference between oldest and youngest in the year group is a smaller percentage of their lifespan, so there is less difference in maturity levels, Ie a 5 year old has 25% more life experience than a 4 year old.

The reason we start kids so young is purely historical 1870 MPs wanted kids to get 5 years of education before leaving school aged 10. Highly relevant in a world where kids stay in education to late teens / 20's.

And if you get to the bottom of it what difference is a few days going to make?

HerMaj

Lozster Actually swimming is one place it gets evened out. If your dc ever swims competitively, they categorise by the year they are born, so Nov / Dec borns suddenly are the youngest in their category and June babies are at least 1/2 way through the age range

I agree GrassPigeons - it is self selecting, precisely as you say.

Another thing I don't think anyone has mentioned, but is becoming an issue in our LA, is that 'Reception age children' remaining in the Pre-school room at Nursery, has a knock on effect for all the little 3 yr olds moving up into that room. As has been stated, many of the children that are deferring do have additional needs and are less mature than their peer, but they are not necessarily 'slight', and bigger, less mature children in the pre-school room creates it's own difficulties.

I totally see that it is definitely an 'educated' / 'middle class' thing in our LA too, which makes the gap for all those children from families where the parents might not be literate, or where the homes have little English, or where parents are struggling in a chaotic lifestyle, or where parents have their own special need even greater than the disadvantages those dc are already starting with.
Looking at it from a whole population pov, rather than looking at 'one child I know', I think deferring, except in exceptional circumstances (and they exist), is a bad thing.

I have a summer born, born 3 weeks early in August 2014, so should be starting school in Sept. We've deferred him and he'll start Sept 2019. It's absolutely right for him. He has no diagnosed SEN but he's not ready at all. He did have a speech delay but has now been discharged by SALT having caught up. But he's only just potty trained (and still needs a nappy to poo), he's quite emotionally immature, and I know he wouldn't cope this year.

It's not all about attainment. I don't care if he is top or bottom of the class, as long as he does his best and I know he won't get that opportunity if he's forced into school too early.

But I'm not buying that deferring a year doesn't help with attainment. It's fairly conclusive that summerborns have poorer outcomes. So if deferring makes no difference, does that mean summerborns overall are just naturally not as academic? Unlikely.

It will cost us in childcare to defer him but he will still be entitle to the 30 free hours so that helps a lot. And it's money we would have had to spend anyway if he'd born when he should have been.

The Scottish better where everyone within a bracket automatically gets the choice is much better. With this system we have a situation where because I got ill and my son had to be born a couple of days before an arbitrary cut off, he misses an entire year of playing.

Even better, the Scandinavian model of starting school much later (with subsidised child care) so nobody has to start school before they are ready.

Completely disagree with , the kids deferred are likely 4-8w older so not even nevessarily bigger. They certainly wouldnt be towering over other. Yes could incl April borns which would be 5m older though i guess.
What is better on population level is to avoid putting young disruptive kids in with those who are ready to learn. Wrongly labelling them as adhd and having to pay through nhs for appts/medicine or just for anti depressants or school dropouts.
It may cost gov to pay for the additional 15-30hrs for 3 terms so they get 6 but if gov couldnt afford those hours equally for 5terms for all it shouldnt be any particular group to lose out. I think 4 terms for all would be best.
I agree with others maybe school starting age needs to change. Or maybe classes with only 6m gap.
I think you wont be able to equalise the effect of eldest being leaders as this is a bit like birth order with siblings. But everyone should have the same chance with qualifications.
I mean grammar entry tests adjust it to make up for the disadvantage. And yet i think still get less SB.
Maybe those disagreeing would be happy for everyone to be equalized on gcse/alevels to be sept born. Thereby negating the advantage your kids are getting??
I dont like this because it is unearned and means they have less accuracy/understanding but it would be interesting to see the effect. (And as i say whether people would change their stance).
Both approaches would probably be best allowing deferral and adjusting results.
Those just wanting fair results would get that and those wanting deferral would be able to but knowing they wont have an advantage.

I can't see how having deferred children in preschools actually makes any difference to 3yos just starting.

In my L.A. children joint nursery the term after they turn 3. Thinking of the start of the summer term, (April) the oldest non- deferred would be 5 years and 1 month (March birthday) , generally the oldest deferred would be 5 years and 3 mths (Jan birthday) is that 2 months older really going to make a difference to a 3 year old just starting?

I should clarify I'm north of the border before anybody argues with my ages. Our cut off is 1st March.

Surely if deferred children stay in the nursery, there are fewer places for 3 year olds who may have greater need?

That's up to the council to find the space and ensure they have enough places exactly the same as they have to provide enough school places.

Nice theory AvoidingDM, doesn't work in practice though.

I'm in Scotland too.

AvoidingDM's 'theory' seems to work pretty well in practice here! I say that as a nursery worker.

Rising 3's and rising 5's are generally separated into ante and pre-school groups so even if they were a particularly rowdy bunch it is unlikely that it would have an impact on them solely based on age/size.

My DS was born in June so he turned 5 2 months before starting school, there is no way he'd have been ready at 4 and my DD just missed the cutoff for last year. If she had been born 4 days earlier I would've deferred in a heartbeat anyway so as it stands she will be 5y5m when she starts. Most of our friends have started this year and I revkon half of those have struggled to adjust as they're just too emotionally immature.

Do you not think that is self perpetuating though YAF ?

If many of the children are 5, up to 5 and a half when starting, then, yes, a younger 4 is going to seem 'too young'. However, when all of the children starting are 4, then it doesn't. The curriculum (EYFS in England) is geared for children of that age. This is't about 'what age is the optimum age to start school' but is about 'In a system where most children start the September after they turn 4, does putting a child into the year group below their peers, help them?' It's a different question.

YerAuntFanny You are so right.
I certainly know one young child who really struggled with the adjustment from nursery to school, she'd been full-time in nursery but almost the whole of the first term she was crying every day. And another who was being pushed with her reading, extra books, so they could get her into a group. I know another mum who questioned if she did the right thing when her LO went into P2 and what was being asked of them seemed to step up.

I'm also lead to believe from teachers on another forum who'd taught in both systems P1 is a lot more formal than England's reception year. While nobody takes the decision to defer lightly but for some kids it really is the best thing.

I actually find it nuts that the line on the calender in England was so black and white with no flexibility. How could anybody say twins born 20mins apart either side of midnight should be in different years? The mum had argued and tried to get them both in the year below but the line was the line. I think English schools, nurseries and parents just need to get used to the idea and work with it and get passed the settling down period.

The youngest in Scotland starting in August are 4.6 February babies, the oldest 5.5 exc those deferred from year before 5.7. Cut off is 1st of March not 1st of Sept.

BackforGood,
well if the Reception curriculum were geared to 4 year olds (and the Y1 curriculum to 5yos) then why are SB boys unlikely to achieve the EYFS goals? (only about half of them do - and that is despite counting April borns as SB too).

I think you'd find that if reception were actually geared towards 4yos, then LOTS of parents would be up in arms that their 5yo is not being taught/challenged/stretched appropriately.

And in fact, there is such a huge difference between the average maturity and developmental stage of a 4yo and 5yo (and between a 5yo and 6yo) that you cannot really do everyone justice.

(Unless you go radical and say that the 5yo's ability/preparedness to learn, doesn't imply that they should be taught how to read/write/add. And hence not teach them. If they (their parents) want to learn, they can do it outside of school. There is no need for a young child to learn to read, even if they could. The need for age appropriate play (that applies to all children) overrides any need for being taught early.
On that basis, you could argue that reading/writing/counting/adding should only be introduced in perhaps Y2 (or even Y3), and that this would be entirely appropriate for all children, even those who could quite easily have learned to read/write/add before.)

One study once concluded that it is not the school starting age that matters, it is the question if the manner and content of teaching is suitable for the age range that matters. We can (and do, if you count pre-schools, or consider school in France) send 3yos to school and it can be entirely appropriate, if their experience of 'school' is suitable to 3yos.

The problem we have in England now is that the reception expectations are not appropriate to 1/3 to 1/2 SB children (who make up 5/12, nearly half, of the cohort). And I would argue that the Y1 expectations (in terms of sitting still, desk-based learning, lack of play, and also academics) are similarly not appropriate to a large part of the cohort.

Sending a just-turned 4yo to reception would not need much thought if reception were such that most just-turned 4yos will be fine. But it isn't.
Sending a just-turned 5yo into Y1 - same thing.

And in fact, there is such a huge difference between the average maturity and developmental stage of a 4yo and 5yo (and between a 5yo and 6yo) that you cannot really do everyone justice.

Which is one of the main arguments for not extending the range of ages in a class / year group, I'd have thought.

Or it could be seen as an argument for 'stages not ages'. If you extend the age range within a year group (to include older, less mature children; and perhaps also younger, mature-for-their-age children), you might in fact be reducing the range of maturity and development.

But in England there seems to be a very deep-seated belief that children must spend their time, and be taught, in their age-cohort; and 'stage' (which can refer to academics, development, maturity, ...) does not come into it. Which is also evidenced in the relative lack of acceleration.

Funny how parents of August-borns think it's unfair that there can be up to 11 months age gap between their child and another in the class, but are happy to consider creating an even larger gap for someone else's child by deferring and making their child potentially 14/-15 months older than some.

Exactly HerMaj

I hear you brilliotic, but once again, a system like that just advantages the children of educated, knowledgeable articulate parents, increasing the gap even further. The Early Education Funding was introduced to try to have a go at starting to close the gap. The authorities need to look at the needs of all children, not just MNers.

ragged That is a very interesting article! It is quite common in the US, has been for a long time - well before my time - but a lot more has been made about it lately. The issue is compounded there that each district (and sometimes different elementary schools in the same district) can have different cut-offs and some state schools require kinda tests of readiness before kids start (I had to do it when I was 4) but if the family moves after that, no matter the rules in the new district/school, kids typically stay in the same grade. I was nearly the youngest my graduating class with only 2 or so younger than me and there were people over 18 months older than me in the same grade.

I'm not sure of any answers, I think any system is going to struggle with range of abilities before even getting to the age ranges.

For those who I know held their child back ( delayed school entry) it was about the child being mature enough to enjoy the whole experience.
An immature child who can only manage a half day, naps from 1-3, might as well start the next year.

Erm hermajesty the august born would only be - up to 13m older and may only be 1day older than some. So could be 12m 1day older.

Those with WB kids do you expect they will always be top and ahead for their age? That is the expectation of an Aug born.
At start yr r
Ive said this on another thread.
An average sept born should be nearly top. If they are advanced to the extent an aug would have to be to be top they would be at a yr 1 level at start of yr r. To be bottom they would be delayed by 12m+
An average aug born would be bottom. 12m advanced theyd be top. 12m delayed that 4yo would be like a 3yo. And 24m behind an average sept born.

Can't these angst would be nothing if the people/school/teachers/parents accept that there will be a huge ability difference between children in ks1 and stop comparing? By ks2, there will be less disadvantage, and some Summer born will start to take over Autumn/Winter born children.