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.

[AvoidingDM]

Irvine I can't say much about reception. But if parents and schools feel a high percentage of the children aren't able to cope with it then something needs to change.

Allowing the youngest to defer entry into it means you allow children to be treated as individuals and get the best from their education.

Alternatively move the cut off point, so children who legally don't need to be there simply aren't forced into it but keep the curriculum the same. But that could mean splitting twins.

Another option would be to lower the expectations and have it more like nursery. Leaving all formal learning reading, writing, sums until Year1.

[mummabearfoyrbabybears]

I live in Scotland but am English. First three children started in English schools and in my opinion deferring children like they do in Scotland is awfully thought out. Most people love it and you're almost a bad parent if you don't defer, with cries of 'they're not emotionally ready' 'He's my first born, I can't let him go yet'. However I really feel that no thought is given to the other end of Primary. These five year olds not starting school until they are 6 or even 7 in my sons class are then going to be 13/14 and STILL at Primary. Then you add in the girls who have the first few years of menstruation to cope with in terribly inadequate primary school toilets. It has been terrible for a few of my friends daughters.

[AvoidingDM]

Mummabear I don't know where the heck you have found any child still in primary at 13/14.
Children legally need to be in school the August after they turn 5 so at the very oldest they will be 12 starting high school.

[IntoTheDeep]

It is much better if DC with summer birthdays start Reception at the usual time

It might be simpler from an organisational point of view, and many summer born children starting at the usual time do cope, but it’s not better for every individual summer born child.

It certainly wouldn’t have been better for DS1 (premature August born with ASD). Even starting a year after “the usual time”, he struggled to cope with the demands of Reception more than most of his (younger) classmates did.

[YerAuntFanny]

@Mummabearfoyrbabybears unless the child has severe developmental delays you cannot defer past the age of 5 and even then those would be extreme cases where mainstream pre-school or primary schooling wouldn't be an option.

Those who will be 5 between August and December don't generally have the option to defer so even if a January born child started at 5y7m they would finish at 12y5m

[AvoidingDM]

The right to defer for kids in Scotland dates back to the mid 70's.
Until the mid 70's Scotland had two intakes March - August babies started in August. September - February started in January.

It's those Sept - February babies who have legal right to defer until the August after their 5th birthday, the vast majority of deferrals are Jan / Feb.
There are some Sept - Dec but very very few. The only two I've come across in RL was a child who had been in the country less than a year with limited English and a child who'd gone through cancer treatment.

[mummabearfoyrbabybears]

There's two children in my sons P1 class that's already 7. No developmental delays. Lots of other children are already 6. My son is still 5. I'm not making it up. It's bloody crazy and wrong.

[Naty1]

I think worse than periods in primary toilets (which would happen to some anyway as some get as early as 9 if not younger). They should be setting up all toilets for this anyway.
Is not being able to learn to drive until in your second yr of alevels. And especially missing the last yr of school or college sociallising so you then go to uni and have first drinks (in theory).

[AvoidingDM]

I seriously doubt that any child is 7 in P1.
6 I can fully understand you are after March the 1st, so even children who didn't defer will be past their birthday.

[TheRealMotherGoose]

I think it should be up to the parents to decide. Parents are generally the ones who know their children best and care about them most.

Obviously not all summerborn children need the extra time, but for the ones who do need it, it can make a huge difference. I don't think this is necessarily measured in test scores, either! Confidence and a positive attitude towards learning are some of the big wins. My summerborn daughter has always developed more at the pace of children a few months younger than her; no special needs or anything, she just takes her time. Instead of feeling like a failure because she can't yet do the things that other children can, she'll be starting Reception with a genuine interest in learning and much greater confidence. I've had other parents come up to me and say how much they wish they'd known it was an option and how their summerborn child has suffered from going to school before they were really ready.

If the parents could just decide, they'd choose what they thought was right for their child. Parents know their child best! And it would save the ridiculous amount of admin that is currently required -- it's a total postcode lottery, and can involve literally months of going back and forth to multiple schools and the local authority, educating them on the legislation and chasing them up for decisions. I don't see how that's in anyone's interests, and must be quite expensive.

[TheRealMotherGoose]

@mummabearfoyrbabybears I think you must be mistaken. It's simply not possible to start school in Reception after compulsory school age (the term after they turn 5) so this could not be the case.

This conversation about a delayed start relates to summerborns, so the children would only be a maximum of a few months older than the normal age group.

[AvoidingDM]

Mummabear - are you sure your son isn't P2?
He didn't do something daft like do Reception in England then go as an advanced entry into P2. Remember we don't have Reception.

[AvoidingDM]

I guess the other answer is hes in a P1/2 composite class.
No chance are you going to find 7 year olds in P1.

[mummabearfoyrbabybears]

It's absolutely laughable. Do you really think I don't know what year my son is in? The Scottish system is laughable. It doesn't address the issue of older children ending up being 13 and still in Primary school. It's ludicrous and doesn't benefit the children at all.

[AvoidingDM]

No what's laughable is you trying to convince everybody you have 7 year olds in P1.

[Miranda15110]

I'm also English and think the Scottish system is much better. My son deferred but was 5 when he went into P1. My daughter is a primary teacher and has confirmed that a 7 year old wouldn't be in P1 unless there was a development issue. The other bonus is no SATS.

[catkind]

In the normal scottish system, the oldest a deferring child could be would be september birthday, which would make them nearly 6 when starting P1, nearly 7 when finishing it. Not 7. Something odd going on in your DS's class mummabear, or you've been misinformed. You don't think it's a composite class then?

[YerAuntFanny]

As others have stated there is a serious issue in your LA and/or school if you have NT 7 Yo's in a primary 1 class.

Is it possible they have been held back for whatever reason? You CANNOT defer a 6yo without intervention in extreme cases!

My DD missed the cut off last year by 4 days. She was 5 in March and will be 5y5m when she starts in August. We have been informed by her teacher that she is the oldest in her class of 20.

There is only 1 child older than her in nursery and that is by 6 days.

[Pinkponiesrock]

In the Scottish system when starting primary school the oldest child you could have in Primary 1 would have turned 5 in the January prior to starting P1 so would be 5 and 8 months. The would finish Primary 1 being 6 years and 6 months.

Normal intake starts in March so even without deferred starts you’ll still have 12 and a half year olds at primary. You wouldn’t be able have 13 or 14 year olds unless they’ve been held back for reasons beyond the normal deferment option given to Jan and Feb borns.

[AvoidingDM]

They can't hold children back beyond the September birthday that is the absolute limit. It is rare any way and would need a really good case to argue for.

Exactly as Yur Aunt Fanny has calculated the oldest finushing in P7 will be 12, almost 13 starting High School.

Trusting your child is P1, he's either in a 1/2 composite or kids are pulling his leg.

[frogsoup]

"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 didn't TTC in November. It was in February, DS was due in November but born in July. The proportion of ex-prems in the population deferring is high, so quite obviously it wouldn't solve anything at all.

As for the revolting smuggy-smugness of the 'well my child was august-born and did fine, obviously some parents just don't prepare their child for school properly' posts, I'm not even going there.

If a study has findings that defy all common sense, then there needs to be a convincing explanation of why this might be the case. I haven't read this research, but as a sociologist by training I'd be very surprised if it stands up to close scrutiny or repeatability. And as for 'it's been peer reviewed' as a guarantee of quality...

[AvoidingDM]

Frogsoup yours is exactly why school systems need flexibility esp systems where children start school so so young.
It's blinkered and nieve to suggest that children fit in neat little boxes defined by a date on a calender.

[frogsoup]

We didn't try to defer but I wish daily that we had . It's ludicrous to speak of gaining 'unfair advantage'. If I look at where our DDs were at on starting school compared to him it makes me want to weep. He was a baby when he started - developmentally like a just 3yo, if that, and a head smaller than his peers. He's doing some catching up now but school is still a huge struggle. Starting a year later would have made all the difference, because whatever any study says, how can it possibly be ok to send a child to school when they are developmentally utterly unready for it? The uk school system has utterly failed him, and continues to do so.

[brilliotic]

frogsoup, I'm also a sociologist by training. Didn't read the study itself, just the report; but from that, the very, very obvious explanation for the finding that deferred SBs don't do better than non-deferred SBs (and therefore do worse than Autumn-borns despite being older than them) is 'selection'.

Only those SBs defer who are so far 'behind' (in some sense or other) that even being a year older will only just allow them to keep up with 'regular' SBs; even being the oldest in the year, they will be significantly behind the average in their year.

This selection happens. Many LAs/HTs do not allow deferral unless there is professional evidence for exactly this kind of major delay.

If anything at all, the study shows us that where LAs do allow parents to choose, parents choose to defer (on average) only when the child is so far 'behind' that they will still be 'behind' (i.e. at the level of an average non-deferred SB) in the year below. They are a year 'behind' average SBs (who are 'behind' the average of their school year cohort themselves), rather than merely a year 'behind' the average of their school year cohort.
So if anything, the report is an indication that at age 3 (when these choices are made), parents really do know best; and that in our culture of overwhelmingly keeping children in their chronological cohort, there is no evidence for parents trying to obtain a relative advantage by 'redshirting'.
(I know this is a known phenomenon in the US, where children are taught out-of-cohort for all manner of reasons; but it seems that here, people are generally very, very cautious about pushing for either acceleration or decelaration. In a context where nearly everyone is taught within-cohort, being out-of-cohort has additional challenges and downsides; and it seems that people do take these into account before choosing to defer/pushing for acceleration.)

If at age 3, parents know best, then if you take cost out of the equation (by providing continuation of free nursery places for 4yos who defer), allowing deferral by parental choice might actually help to equalise socioeconomic differences.
As it is, in most places only those parents who are so much 'on the ball', engaged, informed, and educated that they were able to discern that their child was e.g. actually language delayed rather than just 'slow to talk', able to push for assessment very early, to avoid long waiting lists by going private, etc; will have a diagnosis or 'professional evidence' needed to achieve deferral.

[PerfectlySymmetricalButtocks]

All delayed start means is that they start school in yr1. They're still the youngest in their class, and also having to play catchup.

It would be nice if primary school teachers (like DS2's y1 teacher last year) would realise that being summer born isn't "an excuse" for struggling academically, there was a study, I think last year, that concluded that summer born 11 year olds still struggled.