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.

User, wtf?! 'How advanced you are at that age depends on your home life' is an offensively ignorant statement in the context of this thread. There is no mind reading needed.

Also, I think duchyduke is probably able to speak for herself here without others randomly taking up cudgels on her behalf based on what they think she did or didn't mean.

Do schools that have a two form entry (ie two Y1 classes, two Y2 classes etc) split the children into groups based on their age? I know if they did they would still be following set curriculum for that year group but maybe the teaching style / environment could be more geared towards a young Y1 and an older Y1 group for example.

• disclaimer - not a teacher and no idea if this would be even possible, just a general wondering

reluctantbrit Thu 17-May-18 22:11:54
I think delaying can be good but it doesn’t necessarily mean these children are superstars suddenly. And this is something parents with summer born ones need to remember.

Given DuchyDuke's followup, I prefer to assume, until proven otherwise, that he/she was supporting the statement above with an anecdote that some summer borns will do just fine starting reception at 4. And, personally, I suspect that is more likely to be true for the ones with more supportive and involved parents. I further suspect that those parents, who are considering trying to defer reception until 5, i.e., not taking the default option, are likely to be more supportive and involved than average.

So I find it plausible that DuchyDuke might have been suggesting that, if you're the kind of parent who is considering deferring reception for a year, your child may not be the one who would benefit much from that option.

Obviously I'm putting a ridiculous number of words into DuchyDuke's mouth. But I'm not starting from the assumption that he/she intends to offend.

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.

Have you never made the mistake of posting a response without reading to the very end of the thread? I know that it does happen to us mere mortals.

It is not that relevant whether somebody intends to offend or not. Like I said, if you follow 20-odd posts about children being let down by the system with an anecdote about how summer-borns with involved parents do fine, then the effect is going to be offense, no matter what the intent.

And as for 'if you're the kind of parent who is considering deferring reception for a year, your child may not be the one who would benefit much from that option', this is just nonsense. As i suggested, the 'kind of parent' who seeks to defer is overwhelmingly likely to be one with a child with significant delays, not just one who thinks 'oh it might do them good to stay back a year'! If a child is advanced, who in their right mind would seek to delay them?! It's a profoundly counter-cultural course of action that takes a lot of courage and is pretty universally based on deep knowledge of your own child and what they can cope with. I had many people (including the senco at his new school) say about ds 'But he looks FINE (because obviously Sen are plastered across children's faces,) I'm sure there'll be no problems with him starting on time.' Well, he wasn't fine, and there were problems. We (and he) will live with the consequences of that for the rest of his school career and beyond.

MN threads are a conversation, so cross-posts excepted I certainly hope I've never blundered into a topic on a sensitive issue with a totally off-key anecdote, no.

As i suggested, the 'kind of parent' who seeks to defer is overwhelmingly likely to be one with a child with significant delays, not just one who thinks 'oh it might do them good to stay back a year'!

That is only your assumption. If we go back to the original subject of the thread, the DfE report which was the context of the first page (25 posts), the only descriptive information about the parents who opted for deferred reception was that they were disproportionately white and disproportionately wealthy. There is some evidence that "redshirting" is increasing even in the UK. Considering the lengths that some parents go to in order to get their children into the "right" schools, why would you not expect them to seek the advantages of being one of the larger and more mature in their cohort?

It's not just my assumption - I've been involved in campaigns and parents' groups about the right to defer for years. And yes, of course parents are disproportionately likely to be white and wealthy. Like I said (!) the reason for this is the same reason for every other middle class advantage in the UK - because you need resources and nous to fight the system. Do you have any idea of what it takes to get your child deferred?! That doesn't mean we shouldn't allow deferral, it means we should make sure that every child has that opportunity whatever their background.

The other reason why they don't seek the advantage is because (did I mention this as well?) in the UK it is still counter-cultural. People race to be first to put their kids in sodding forward-facing car seats and race to be first to put their kids through reading schemes and first to do all sorts of nonsense things. Delaying a child at nursery while your neighbour's child is busy learning to read at a rate of knots? If it happens, it's going to be exceedingly rare.

In any case, if Jocasta Innes-Brown-Maplinthorpe-Budgery wants to defer her little prodigy Prometheus for a year (always assuming she deigns to use the state system in the first place, which isn't that likely), if that means that it becomes straightforward and non-stigmatising for kids like my DS to do so as well, then let's get it set up asap.

user, the evidence is is the survey results. The deferred summer born children still achieved significantly below non summer borns and in line with non deferred SBs. That is, they achieved in line with a cohort about a year younger and significantly below those in between. If they were average middle class parents deferring for advantage, with all the advantages of supportive home environment and oldest in their class to boot, you'd expect them to be achieving above the winter born group and well above non deferred children. There may of course be some red-shirting but in the data collected that effect was not dominating.

In my private school the asian/chinese kids were not in top groups apart from maths. (Mostly they were from hk boarding so were EFL).
Anyway did you start at just 4 Duchy? Older people used to start at 5 or term before 5 so would depend on age.
There is a big range of summer born. Being say April (and your friends kids too) i would make less difference.
Schools are now taking more SEN pupils as SEN schools are closing. More EAL students. The last few years have been large birth years.
There can also be differences caused by sahm/nursery. With nursery kids more used to the hours and routine/discipline.
It's not like people are thinking crap i havent taught dc how to count/do colours/do their coat etc, i need a whole 18+m to do this. It's more that 48m old isnt that far from terrible twos for some kids, needing a nap or having tantrums.
It may be that nursery is emphasising the natural differences. Some having gone from say 12m-60m all week 8-6pm. Others only going 12h/week for a year.
Different groups may well know different things/have different skills that maybe arent covered by the starting school criteria.
I watched a program where they took 2 gcse students who were underperforming and skipping out of lessons etc and put them with other families who did focus on education, they did do better. With more strict parents...
Also there is the effect on sport, with fewer SB getting in teams etc.
The immaturity of other kids in the class too makes a difference. As dd was worst when interacting with another SB child.
The level of adult literacy is not great across the UK, some parents struggle to read with/to their kids.
All affecting the weakest students the most.
Also not all parents have the time/energy after work etc to be going over what the kid should be doing at school.
Children i know at 4yo are literally a yr behind in some things than dd was. And will be starting school with the language of possibly some 18m-2.5yos. I dont think it is parental involvement, some kids are just happy to go off and play etc. More placid/happy personality so not demanding as much interaction. But also being prem making more difference than just the months lost.

But anyway why should parents be expected to pick up the slack. WB go and they do well. SB go and do less well need intervention etc (which would be school and budget dependent), and more parental help.
Definitely now some parents are pushing/assisting their kids, teaching reading and writing at nursery age. Giving phonics and maths apps. Lots of kids any birth month could be really far ahead with this. But how much could some 3yo do?
Some couples plan their kids to try to have WB dc.
Everyone wants their kids to do well. Im thinking more 8-10 good gcses, alevel grades to get into uni. Not exactly medicine/vetinary etc. I just dont think it could make that much difference to make them top. Otherwise all sept borns would be. It's not basic iq that is improved by being eldest it's concentration/maturity/world knowledge/tiredness. Doing things like setting at primary and using ks2 sats for gcse predictions that allow teachers their payrises isnt going to help. If age made no difference to ability to learn some things then we may as well teach everything at primary?
Someone on one group had 'irish twins' Literally one newborn the other 11m etc it's a huge difference. That eldest one would be walking as the other is newborn. It's not just the year older but what they can do in the yr 4-5. Swimming/gym/cycling/reading/maths/writing.

Sorry I mean average middle class kids, not average parents! Unless pushy parents is average. Maybe it is.

duchyduke I accept you weren’t talking about kids with SEN, but, many kids with SEN, even September born ones, are still undiagnosed at the school starting age. We didn’t know DS1 had ASD when we chose to defer him.

It can take a long time to get a diagnosis - for us, from the point of asking the GP for a referral, it took about 16 months to get a diagnosis. That’s pretty fast for our area, the waiting list for ASD assessments in our neighbouring county is currently over 2 years long.

the evidence is is the survey results.

catkind - with all due respect, there is very little evidence of anything in the survey results. As it happens, I also would have expected the deferred children to have done better than they did, based on the information about their coming from better-off households. I also agree that, if those expectations were justified, there must be some offsetting factor and a high prevalence of significant developmental delays in these children seems like a good candidate. However, the survey itself doesn't provide enough detail to make strong statements.

I should also clarify that I am referring to parents today and in the future who might be considering redshirting their children. The changes making it easier to do so were only introduced a few years ago. It takes time for players to figure out new "optimal" strategies when the rules of the game change.

I don't know how much of a cultural change will be needed to make redshirting "normal" in the future, at least for the well off. I know two August-borns (one on the 31st) who were deferred into 5+ reception in independent primaries. Neither seemed to have any special requirement for this but their parents just preferred it and the schools agreed. Both are doing well. Of course, they might have done just as well had they started a year earlier.

"with all due respect" ouch. A phrase that notoriously declares that no respect is due. You said that all that is known about the deferring parents was white and wealthy. It's not all that was known, it is also known that their children went on to achieve significantly below younger cohorts. It's not conclusive proof of anything, but it is another piece of evidence.

Plus the wealth of quantitative and qualitative evidence available about the benefits of later school starting age, based on experience from multiple countries over decades. Pretty much every expert in early child development is against starting formal schooling as early as we do in the uk. But let's not let that get in the way of a good pointy-elbowed-middle-class bashing.

I'm going to ignore Duchyduck- Frog you got a hard time. But you were right in what you said it was an incredibly offensive post.

Magpie the school I attended split the year group on age. I think that idea has been over taken by the idea of mixing the ages, abilities and personality types.

Wondering how they identified the kids who had deferred but not repeated yr r? Knowing of 2 kids who repeated who had summer birthdays. The situation may be more extreme than parents just choosing to defer. Both dc had GDD and possible ASD. One would hope that repeaters would be stripped out of the data as repeating and deferring would show different results

It must be a child who's really struggling to repeat a year.
I know LAs don't like It because of cost. Schools don't like it because of self-esteem, stigma and friendship groups. Not to mention the stress of trying to kept the child up to speed with the rest of the class before getting to the point of deciding to repeat. It's better all round for kids to stay in preschool an extra year.

One would hope that repeaters would be stripped out of the data as repeating and deferring would show different results

Do you mean because a child who’s repeated Reception is likely to be achieving more than if they’d deferred?
Although I’d have thought that a child struggling so much that they have to repeat Reception is still likely to be achieving below average on these tests, given how unusual it is for a child to repeat Reception.

catkind - it is also known that their children went on to achieve significantly below younger cohorts

The survey does not actually say that. It does say that delayed admission summer-borns achieved above normal admission summer-borns, but that non-summer-borns achieve above both. However, it does not specify any level of significance. The survey is devoid of the usual statistical accouterments. The only mention of significance is that the 0.9 marks by which the delayed admission summer-borns of 2015/16 outperformed those of the previous year was not statistically significant.

catkind, let me be clear: I agree with your conclusion. But not because of what is in this survey because the results on educational attainment are very weak and very vague.

User do you have a link to the survey ?

What would be really interesting to see would be the results of a survey for any given year group of the exams taken at 16, GCSE, or Nat 5's. Done month by month.

You would hope that it should be fairly even , no month of birthdays should do better or worse than any other month.
While I appreciate that it would be difficult to do that in England because of how recently deferring has become a legal right. It would be fairly easy to study the results in Scotland where deferring has been available for a much longer period of time.

But it would be good to compare notes with a similar survey from a country where they do think about school until 6 or 7.

Do you think the British public would accept kids not going into school until 6and I mean starting after their 6th birthday?

Or is childcare so expensive the it would be an economic disaster?

Well they do describe it as "initial" results. It's a very recent change.
I'm assuming a degree of statistical competence, given they mention significance and headline no difference where the difference isn't significant, I assume if they say something is different they mean significantly so. Would be nice to see the full analysis though.

Looking at that section in the survey again I think the BBC may have missed the point. Perhaps what they meant was the difference between 14-15 (no parental choice) and 15-16 (some authorities allowing parental choice). And that this data did not give evidence of an improvement in results i.e. stronger cohort of children being deferred. Which is at least a point in favour of there not being a rush to red-shirting able children.

AvoidingDM, catkind (the OP) was kind enough to include the link in the first post. Here it is again.

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

catkind - I found many of the "results" to be difficult to interpret. Like you, I thought their choice of grammar in some cases was so poor that it was ambiguous exactly which comparison they were reporting on.

I found the paragraph on achievement to be particularly uninformative. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about what conclusions can be drawn from it.