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.

x-posted, frogsoup.
Just wanted to say I'm sorry that your DS has been let down so much. Helping out in a Y1 class I saw quite a few children similarly being let down, it was very painful to observe.

My own (non-deferred) August-born is now in Y3 and has been doing well, academically, from the start. Even so, starting school was a huge struggle, socially/emotionally. I feel that being put into (social) situations he was not ready to deal with (developmentally), has caused him long-term damage; and the realisation that I allowed this damage being done to him (by not deferring) is very difficult to deal with.

Now I have an April birthday DD due to start in September; in many ways she seems less ready than DS was. But she is tall and seems academically able to keep up, and will be 4.5 upon starting. Our school's HT would categorically not allow deferral. So she will be starting school, and I will be watching carefully.

Brill have you thought of sending part time? The head may grumble but it is your legal right until CSA.

Brillotic yes I think that nails it. If my ds were in his 'correct' year according to his due date rather than birth date, I'd imagine he'd be (just) within average achievement levels, as opposed to approx a year behind. Also, as you say these measures don't account for all the 'softer' advantages of delayed start, to do with social readiness, confidence etc. Having said that, ds has in some ways developed a degree of strength of character in the face of difficulty that I hope will be some compensation for what he's been through!

Perfectlysymmetrical no the study is talking about actually deferring reception start, not just going into yr 1. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Perfectly laws in England changed recently so deferred means starting Reception a year later.

Brill. You speak so much sense.

I think you have found exactly what I found there is no advantage to deferring a child who's ready but huge advantages to deferring a child who's not ready i.e. they end up being equal not disadvantaged.

Deferring levels the field making it easier for kids and teachers to have children who are more ready. Than having to deal with children who'd benefit from a year in nursery to mature a wee bit.

Shantotto, indeed we are considering along those lines. Also considered delaying start until later in the school year, but the new (new since DS) reception teacher has a very good reputation for being great with 4-5yos (specialist EYFS teacher) that we're veering more towards PT.

P/T or deferring until later in year isn't an option in Scotland.

I can only imagine it must be tough for a child to enter in mid school year, Skipping the easy settling in period and trying to brake into established friendship groups.

AvoidingDM, it depends.
There was a child who joined DS' reception year in February, it really made me think.

My DS' experience (starting at just 4, with everybody else, FT after one week of half-class settling in mornings) was not an experience of an 'easy settling in period' - there were 28 other children needing 'settling in', my DS who was very anxious but quiet and well behaved was totally overlooked, leading to considerable difficulties. School life was not so much explained to him as just assumed that he'd 'get it' by osmosis. He coped by copying other children (who were just as clueless as him) and by taking any explicit instructions literally (e.g. 'Children, go to the loo if you need to, we'll have carpet time next and I don't want you to be going to the loo then'. DS doesn't need toilet so doesn't go. Comes carpet time, needs a wee. Has 'been told' he can't go to loo during carpet time, so wets himself instead.)
The child who started in February (at age 5) had a lot of individual attention, everything was explained to him rather than assuming that he'd just 'get it' along with everyone else. He could do very well by copying the other children who were settled and knew what's what. He was assigned buddies to help him out when he was unsure. His settling in period was a lot gentler and individualised to his actual needs than my DS had.

And regarding friendship groups. One of the main issues DS had was that for the first half year of reception or so, the children were establishing a social hierarchy (not quite the same as friendships!) As a four year old he was socially confident (for his age), friendly and outgoing, but unequipped for dealing with the kind of manipulations, boundary drawing, in-group creation and explicit exclusions that were happening. It was only after that phase had settled down (hierarchy established) that friendships started to emerge. I wish I had spared DS that experience - it made him grow up before his time, making him socially quite anxious now.
The child who joined in February joined just at the right time when children had got over the 'hierarchy' phase and were starting to form friendships.

But I recognise that not every child's experience of the beginning of reception will be like this (or else I would DEFINITELY be delaying DD's start!) I just think it can happen, and average 4yos are not equipped to deal with this. So the arguments about 'easy settling in period' and about 'establishing friendship groups' don't always apply, IMO.

Brill I'll stand corrected I just didn't see it that way. You've enlighten me to things I couldn't see. Scotland is an all or nothing approach which was a headache in itself to decide to I/ don't I. Who knows what would happen if we had more options.

Avoiding I stand corrected. DS2 is a good example of what happens if you don't defer. He's not just struggling academically, but emotionally too. He's possibly even young for his age.

AvoidingDM, yes the do I/don't I! It's hard! In some ways I was glad we didn't really have the option of deferring reception start, it would have been agonising!

Perfectly I'm really sorry your LO has been forced into a shitty position.

I'd 100% fight for parents in England to have the same flex in the system as Scotland's had for years.
The rigid black and white is absolutely nuts, children mature at different rates, premature births can easily affect development too. I know not all areas make mid year starts easy either (And I'd seen arguments against).

If I hadn't deferred I'm sure we'd have ended up with LO really struggling too. But you then you worry will LO get bored in preschool.

I don't think DS2 would have got bored in nursery class, I thought DD would, she's autumn born, but I was pleasantly surprised. DS1 just went kind of manic if his brain wasn't occupied. In the run up to the Christmas holidays, he used to roll about on the floor of the minibus on the way to trips. He was grinning, so they weren't tantrums.

It’s difficult because how advanced you are at that age depends on your home life. I’m Asian. I was summer born, by nephews are summer born, a lot of my Indian and Chinese friends have summer born kids. All of them, including me, were at the top of the class academically right from the start, with stand out social skills, because of parental involvement and interaction with extended families.

Duchyduke that is such offensive bollocks. Whatever your 'standout social skills' and high-level academics were at 4, they clearly haven't extended into adulthood, or you might have realised that on a thread about deferring reception entry there will be many of us with kids with special needs, for whom no level of parental involvement would have magically turned them into pint-sized prodigies. There was nothing on earth that was going to get ds ready for reception, on account of being born 3.5 months early and having resulting delays in both gross and fine motor skills, as well as speech and emotional development.

God, theres always one.

Well said Frog x

Does that post get classed as racist?

Mostly just thoughtless and smug, I think! And rather ironic too. A bit like someone posting 'i hav stand owt speling skils'.

so true.

School are suggesting dyslexia is slowly coming to light in DS. I suspect it may have been part of the issue all along. But no matter that extra year to mature was most definitely needed.

frogsoup, the tone of your comment was also uncalled for. As in many threads of this length there's been more than one conversation. How do you know that DuchyDuke wasn't just adding another anecdote about the perceived disadvantage of non-SN summer borns? How do you know that DuchyDuke wasn't commenting on the issue of parents delaying their children a year for perceived opportunistic advantage?

I’d agree that the home environment does make a difference to children, but not everything about a child’s development can be controlled by the parents!

Like with my DC - DS1 was a premature August baby, he has ASD, he’s been deferred a year and still struggled to adjust to Reception entering a year “late”.

And then we have DS2. A little more than 2 years younger. Full term autumn baby, neurotypical, he was ahead of DS1 on his emotional / social / behavioural development by the time he turned 2.
He’s in nursery now, doing well, and I think he’d have coped fine for the most part if he’d started Reception last September.

Same home life - if anything, DS1 has had more parental attention due to being the first born and because of the problems his ASD causes him - yet two very different levels of readiness for school.

Clearly it was not just a random anecdote about pushy parents. It was implying that if children had proper parental involvement they wouldn't be delayed at reception age, as evidenced by the stunning academic and social achievements of all her wonderfully-parented summer-born peers. It was offensive and ignorant, whichever way you cut it, and yes it absolutely gets short thrift from me.

@frog your comment was uncalled for as were the digs about me personally. I wasn’t referring to kids with SEN but replying to reluctantbrit’s post on the 1st page. I can only go from my experience as an Asian person & I made it very, very clear that there weren’t racial reasons for success for kids but parental and / or social ones. Not every child needs to be held back for their own good at reception.

Duchyduke but parental / social support systems do not solve the problems of all summerborns, not even the bright one, and no one is suggesting everychild needs to be held back. Your superior academic abilities appear to have failed you spectacularly.

frogsoup - Clearly .... It was offensive and ignorant, whichever way you cut it, and yes it absolutely gets short thrift from me.

You must be a mind-reader, then, because it was about as clear as mud to me. It may have been ignorant if it was intended in the way that you perceived, something of which I have seen no evidence. You found it offensive. You seem like the kind of person who is determined to assume the worst in others. That is the kind of person who gets short shrift from me.

Im sorry I was rude, that didn't help. But I still don't understand how your comment is anything but offensive, not only to parents of kids with diagnosed sen, but all parents who seek to defer their child. According to you, the summer-born child will not need deferring if they have engaged parents. What else could you have meant by 'how advanced you are at that age depends on your home life'?!

Actually it depends on many factors, of which parental engagement is only one. Development is not linear and some children will be slower to pick skills up than others at a given age. School starting age is ridiculously young in the UK and some children just will not be ready.

As several people have suggested already, the cultural norm in the UK is definitely not 'red-shirting' to gain unfair advantage, it is entering school in the correct year group. As a result, it takes enormous guts to seek to defer your child (I didn't have enough myself). The only people I know who have wanted to defer had to fight tooth and nail to be allowed to defer by the lea, and not always successfully either. If they are disproportionately wealthy and educated as a group, that is not because they seek unfair advantage, but because it takes huge resources - financial, emotional and educational - to fight the system. To suggest that parents seek deferral on a whim, to gain extra advantage, is as absurd as to suggest women have c sections because they are too posh to push.

In that context, an anecdote about how summer-born children will be academically and socially advanced if they have engaged parents appears stunningly tone deaf, particularly if it supposedly referred to a post 100 posts earlier, but in reality comes directly below 20-odd posts by people about how badly their children have been let down by the system.