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.

accept that there will be a huge ability difference between children in ks1

Part of the problem is that the low expectation of the summer borns probably harms them, and I suspect the low expectation of the held back a year is similar.

I agree i hate the sound of differentiation for the youngest. If they need different work then there is something wrong. Also while I generally like streaming i feel this would not be great in allowing kids to catch up.
I think it's that worse overall behaviour would lead people to assume the kid wasnt as bright.

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.

No, at the level of a child starting year 1 who's skipped reception. Not the same. Schooling does have some effect.

I think even at the age of starting reception, 12 months of development is already small compared to the variation within a same age cohort. i.e. the difference between a more mature/academic just turned 5 and a less mature/later developing just turned 5 is more than the difference between an average 4 and an average 5. Whether we're talking about social, academic or plain size. Top groups in DC's classes have had a good mix of birthdays across the year right from reception.

Tbh stage not age over the key stages/across the key stages would be a better overallpolicy as at least everyone’s learning something if streamed.

I honestly dont see why an average Sept born couldnt have hit all the eyfs targets. The curriculum is the same. So it depends on what they are taught at nursery. Either way they should have hit the ones excl reading/writing number bonds.
Certainly my lg having learnt to read from 3.5yo had hit all but writing and number bonds and thats because those hadnt been taught.

I agree i hate the sound of differentiation for the youngest. If they need different work then there is something wrong

Of course there isn't.
Every lesson, of every day, across every Primary school is prepared with work differentiated for the needs of different children. Something would be wrong if any teacher were delivering a 'one size fits all' lesson to any class. Yes, in Early Years and KS1 there is a correlation between younger borns and those needing a bit more support, but it's never as clear cut as that - loads of August borns are totally ready for school both socially and academically, and loads of September borns aren't. A teacher will teach to the needs of each cohort.

Tbh my son has such a bumpy profile as he is 2e.... he is in year one with some skills at nursery level and in some subjects needs year three/four work to be challenged.

Most people I know in RL considering this are very caught up in the idea that they can transform a perceived disadvantage into an advantage. The evidence is pretty strong regarding the relationship between when a child was born in the year and levels of attainment so it's easy to see how parents can be keen to give their child any advantage they can.

My concern is that I know a few parents who have quite advanced summer born children, both socially and academically, who want to defer a year so that their child will be in an even better position when they start school versus their peers. Of course, they are reluctant to openly admit this but if you get into detailed discussion this is basically the gist of what is happening. This seems really unfair on those children's classmates as not only would it be exceedingly difficult for a spring/summer born a year younger to compete academically thus potentially promoting confidence issues etc, but these kids will also find it so difficult to keep up physically and socially. I think it's so hard for children who are behind in certain aspects to build confidence and catch up without having children who should be in a different academic year motoring ahead and (often unintentionally) dominating situations with their advanced skills. I see this in the preschool my DC attends where summer born DC are streets ahead of summer born children born the year after.

Interesting bumpity - my experience is more the opposite, parents with mature confident DC are keen to move on to the next stage with their cohort, parents with autumn born more mature children are often wishing they could move up early with what the child perceives as their cohort too.

What is more difficult and more common is for a child to be able in one dimension and less in others. Some friends have had good results with part time reception for an academically able but socially less ready child, but it was a fight with school and technically not allowed by the head.

catkind Yes I agree that it's more common to have a more mixed bag in terms of a child's strength and weaknesses. I think that's why I was surprised that those parents with children that seem generally quite advanced were contemplating this. I guess though that when you think of "maturity" it's quite a woolly concept. There are different kinds of maturity and like you say children will develop unevenly and won't be equally good at all things.

Maybe parents of summer born children are more likely to see a weakness in their child as being related to their child's relative immaturity, whereas parents of non summer born children have no option but to accept that their child will be behind in some areas compared to their peers. Not sure if I've articulated that we'll, just wondering really....

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but I thought it was interesting that this report didn't split children into impact by sex. From my experience it's summer born boys who struggle more than girls, especially with reading etc. It's often at age 7 or 8 you see them settle and find their feet with academic skills, so after the KS1 SATs, phonics test etc.

Reading eyfs
85 WInter
78 spring incl apr
69 SB
77 average

Writing eyfs
82

74

64

73 average

Percentages hitting the targets averages over several years.

I don't think I've come across any child who's been deferred just to give them an advantage. Parents of able children do worry about them becoming bored in preschools

Bubbles there is no extra cost - the Gov provides the 15 or 30 hours free childcare in nursery until they are 5 so if they start a year "late" (or when their due date actually was in our case) they still get that funding til the last term of their 4th year. It costs no more to the parents other than the wraparound fees

Bumpity I've now met quite a few parents who are considering delaying their child, mostly because they were premies and born before their Sept / Oct due date and or have extra needs (not necessarily SEN) - I know of a premier mum who doesn't want to defer because her daughter is ready and bored at nursery but genuinely gobsmacked that parents are delaying kids to achieve better exam results alone!!
Summerborn myself and loved school so have been battling with myself over our decision!!

IMO school 'readiness' has little to nothing to do with academic abilities such as being able to count, 'read', and any such things that are often seen as 'being ahead'.

Much more with developmental milestones such as developing 'theory of mind' (usually from age 4.5 onwards), and the social maturity needed to navigate large peer-groups, often minimally or unsupervised (especially important in reception, where often one group of children is working with the teacher, second group is working with TA, and everyone else is engaged in free-flow indoors/outdoors play and as such pretty much unsupervised - in addition to minimally supervised breaktimes/lunch).

The maturity needed for the type of learning typical for Y1 onwards, IMO, is on average only achieved at age 7 or so, and therefore more playbased learning in Y1 would benefit all children, not just SBs.

So I can understand that people with 'advanced' seeming children consider deferring. Just because you can read a bit already does not mean you're ready for school.

brilliotic, I sort of agree to a extent. But if the child is academically advanced but socially immature, delaying entry to school would not really benefit the child?

It is much better if DC with summer birthdays start Reception at the usual time. Schools ought to make some allowances for the age difference, but it really is far better for children to attend school all together.

User numbers - what makes you say that? Why is it better for a child who us 4 yrs and a day to start school at the same time as a 5 year old? That makes no sense

I'm quite cynical about the EYFS targets excluding academic ones. Main criteria at our school seems to be "have sat through the reception year so we can gather evidence". I think a lot of kids would pass at the end of preschool if they were assessed the same way they are at the end of reception.

Maybe user means compared to the system when I started school where September born got 3 terms of reception and summer born only 1.

Not read all the posters but I regret(!) allowing my summer born to start r2 when he did, but went with it and fortunately with a truckload of hard work from me and his very good school, he is catching on 3 year later. If I could I would have shoved him down a year to kids that fit his level better. He is far from stupid but he is "younger" then his classmates and it is noticeable.

I would much more prefer the other systems where children start in their year group! Example: Year 2015- Jan to Dec, with a start in September, the children starting will be on more equal grounds as the youngest is born in December which is 3 months AFTER school start and not almost a full year.
Never understood the logic of sending 2 different age groups, because that is what they are, into one year. There is clearly a fault in the British system.

Seriously User how can you say it's much better for summer norms to start at the usual time?
That was the argument the twin mum was faced with, no-flexibility in the system for twins born either side of the cut off 20mins - and a full school year.
I know that is extreme but it's the reaility of life is children don't suddenly wake up on their 4th birthday with a maturity they didn't have the day before.

Maturity to sit down and listen doesn't happen over night it's something that slowly develops.

The fear preschool had was my LO just didn't have the maturity to sit and listen. Therefore very quickly fall behind.

Avoiding, but that should be the whole point of reception being mainly learn through play , they shouldn't fall behind. Purpose of reception year should be getting children ready for more structured ks1.

I live in Scotland and delayed my sons entry into school as he was a February bday. Our decision to delay was based on his lack of maturity and the fact he was getting so much out of the private nursery he attended. There are four children in his class of 23 that also delayed. He is performing extremely well in school and higher than average for reading. There are two children I'm aware of in his class that could have delayed but parents chose not to. Both children's parents have expressed to me that they wish they had done the same as us as their child just wasn't ready. It's a composite class year 3/4. For us we also felt that should our child go to University we would want him to go when he is 18 to allow him to fully engage with student life. It's tough in Scotland if your only 17 and can't do the same thing as your peer group.