Positive experiences of summer-born starting school

[Newoneagain]

I’ve recently started to feel quite panicky at the thought of my August-born DS starting school next year when he’ll just have turned 4.

I know there are options to explore for starting reception later or even applying to join the following year but I’m so confused about what to do.

Part of me feels like he’d be ok because as a 2.5 year old he seems very bright and confident, thrives at nursery and activities, talks very well etc. However he’d be close to a whole year younger than other kids and I feel so guilty and sad thinking that he might struggle and constantly feel inferior compared to others who are more able due to being older.

On the other hand I hear of several sept-borns being bored and complacent as they’re older than most of their peers so if we were able to hold him back a year it might not be good for him anyway.

Does anyone have any experiences they can share? Anecdotally my DH and I are both summer-born and never struggled particularly. I didn’t even realise this was an issue until reading about it on parenting forums and seen that there’s a whole load of research into how disadvantaged summer-Borns are.

OP if you feel the group is too much of an echo chamber then there is also a group for summerborns who are at school or starting school. Maybe more helpful there?i think everyone on that group is pro summerborns starting at CSA as countries with much later starting school ages seen to have much better results. I wish we had a scandi style system here! Also there wont have been many if any yet who have completed their schooling haven’t started later. I can’t inagine the downsides though!

If you dont want to defer then dont. Because imo it's possible some areas are concerned everyone will, just in case. Or that loads of Apr borns will too meaning they are much older than everyone else. You dont need to copy everyone either way. Do what is right for your child. Yes it is possible they may score less throughout or not go to uni. But none of this is a guarantee anyway.
I think people whose children will struggle will likely know. Or it would be impossible to know about academics as they havent started to be taught yet.
But if deferral means the twins who were prem and speech delayed can start when they should have then that can only be a good thing. Likewise a child who cannot sit still, being 12m older they are likely to have improved and if not they are closer to being disgnosed etc being 5/6 etc and in a lower year group where intervention might make a difference.

Wow some huge misguided information on here! The Gov website and all local authorities has clear guidelines on Summerborn admissions. You can defer your child to start in the Spring or Summer term or you have the option of delaying and starting reception the term after they turn 5, CSA. We are most definitely not middle classed or privileged and yet our our June born son has just started reception aged 5 &3 months. Purely based on him being too young and not ready for school when he was 4. No SEN or developmental delays. Our preschool totally agreed he would benefit from an extra year with them. Our Headteacher is amazing and completely agrees with delaying summerborn if the parents feel it’s best as they know their child best. We had our first proper parents evening recently and his reception teacher said we had definitely made the right decision for him and she’s in total agreement that some children just aren’t ready for school and it’s great to delay. He is in the average for reception so had he have started the year before he would probably have been struggling and that’s exactly what we didn’t want. We wanted him to thrive not struggle and just cope and always have to play catch up. Children can get switched off from learning at a very young age particularly if they get labelled as being behind and needing to do extra to catch up. I don’t think delaying or deferring has anything to do with parents income or class it’s parents knowing their child well enough to decide what is in their best interest. All children are different and our school system is a one size fits all which doesn’t work for very child. Having options to give your child the best start to their educational life is a good thing.

Oh and we waited until we got his offer of a place at school for 2017 before making our final decision in case he had suddenly caught up with his peers and seemed more ready for school, with the backing of our Headteacher. We then declined the place saying we had agreement form the school to delay his start into reception when he reached CSA in 2018.

Sunshine6
Good for you but I actually wanted to see the other side - ie if people have experience of children not missing a year. Guessing you’ve come from the post on Facebook discussing this thread.

*delaying a year

New I think there will be plenty of people who have positive experiences if their summerbrons starting school at just turned 4. It is the most common option and for lots of people it will have worked. Unfortunately, you probably won’t get most of them replying, as many won’t even think about it, or be drawn to posts like this.

As lots of people have said, it’s completely individual, and the experience will depend on the chil and the family. I certainly know that summerborn children we know, who have already been at full-time nursery seem to, in general, take it more in their stride. Some schools are also very flexible in letting children do part-time (legally they have to, but it can be a mission in itself), which will also make it more viable and positive for some people. There is really no blanket x is better than y answer. I personally believe we start children at school too young in this country, but our decision was based on the fact our son is very quiet, he has only just started to thrive at nursery, we have an excellent nursery which can support him, I am at home anyway, and the school is going to are very good at dealing with more able children. For us, therefore, it was an easy decision. Had he been older (e.g born in April, May or June), I think we would have started to see more potential issues, but again, that is just for us, and not for everyone.

Only you can know what you think will be best for your child and your family.

Most summerborns start aged 4 as not many delay and the vast majority do absolutely fine. I have a friend who’s daughter is August born and has exceeded all expected levels throughout school. I also know plenty of Autumnborns who have struggled all the way through school. There is no good comparison to make as every single child is different, emotionally, socially & academically. Only you know your child well enough to know if your child can meet all the demands of school life.

The reality is it is a disadvantage but so is being from low income family, being second born, being a boy, being prem. Most of these you cannot change. But you may be able to remove this disadvantage.
For some the difference may be negligible or even negative if they are very sociable, bright etc. And their max mark would be A* so they get only A instead. Well that is unlikely to make a huge difference.
Others may struggle to even learn to read/write do basic maths and it could make the difference to even passing gcses.
Although i think brains are often inherited it is by no means a given your dc will do well or badly as you did.
I think if the parent themself couldnt take the yr 6 sats and pass them then they would be unlikely to be able to help dc with it.
Ive been watching 'growing up gifted' and one of the 'gifted' dc seems to have turned 16 before doing the second gcse year. (Or i guess maybe really early like sept). Which is interesting.
Full disclosure of your local schools make up of each set would be useful info. Are they able to coulteract the disadvantage.
You gest do less well but even be down to the fact they may go to bed an hour earlier consistenty over all those years, losing interaction, passtimes, relaxation, homework and revision time. I think with info online now maybe uk should consider classes of 6m which are then maybe more flexible too. As also it seems a lot of schools sit gcses early.
Unfortunately the starting at 4 when CSA was 5 was to counteract the disadvantage of some starting in Apr so only getting 4m of yr r. When the others were there learning more.

I was at Oxbridge where there is a predominance of September/October/November birthdays. However of those I knew probably between 1/4 and 1/3 had actually at some point been put up a year (or two!). So were younger than the summer birthdays. So I don't think it's as simple as just summer born is harder.

@Witchend I have always assumed that this is because, often, the kind of parents who will push/support their child academically to inspire them to want to apply to Oxbridge are also the kind of parents to be a bit more scheduled about planning an autumn baby.

Definitely not always the case but from my own experience the more pushy parents seem to have children in October/November...

Although I suppose they could also be like me (one November born and one due in September) and like to have a drink over Christmas before contemplating a pregnancy

DH is made up though, as apparently you’re also much more likely to end up playing in the premier league with a birthday early in the school year as you will be more physically able.

You can see where the priorities lie in our house, and it’s very much Anfield rather than Oxbridge

In my experience, it's all utter nonsense. I am September born - did ok at school, got a mediocre job. DH is April - higher rate tax payer, works ridiculously long hours for it though. Our kids - DD1 - 14 years old, December born, absolutely middle of the road, have no worries about her; DS, 12 - July born - would be G and T by the old measures - now top set in everything, reading age always been ahead etc; DD2, 4 - sept born, in no rush to show her talents yet, that's fine. She will when she's ready.

For what it's worth, my sister in law is a Reception teacher, she's been in the job for 15 years. She assured me that the age gap between a Sept born vs an August born is evened put by Y4 or Y5, sometimes earlier. Other factors can bring on children quickly such as older siblings, encouraging parents and reading every bed time...apparently it all makes a difference.

Shrumps yes I’m starting to think so too. And SamHogan thanks, that’s really reassuring and totally makes sense! He has a step brother who’s quite a bit older so maybe that doesn’t count but I definitely think things like reading and doing things with older children, going to nursery etc will definitely make a difference.

I’m on the flexible school admissions group on Facebook and there’s people on there wanting to decelerate children born in April, for no medical reasons or delays, I’d have no concerns with a spring/early summer child, and if that child can decelerate they’d be a gap of 17/18 months between them and the youngest child!

I think the potential 17 month gap in some classes is going to cause problems actually. Teachers have a hard enough time catering for differing abilities at the moment and surely that’s only going to get worse with such a large gap between the oldest and youngest.

I think Apr is probably not needed as 1st Apr is just off halfway so a good chance of being in the meeting expectations range. But obviously there could be SEN or prematurity. Not sure but may even be possible they were due in Sept for eg.
However I disagree that 1 older child making the spread bigger will make much difference at all.
1 Because that one child could easily have been born 1st sept (ie there is no specific spread of BD in a class it is random, with more born slightly in winter. You could easily be youngest as even a Jun just through bad luck.
2 there is no reason to assume 5m older would make them top.
3 whereas they could be 12m delayed eg making a yr 2 half way through yr 1 if not delayed or is delayed half way through yr 2.
The gap is more a range of averages so one or two outliers by 'ability' cannot be helped. Imo an outlier by age is even less important.
In contrast should we force up the sept etc borns doing well to make space for the kids not doing as well?

By secondary apparently many children are out of age group for whatever reason (depending on school).

I know 2 dc dropped down a year, this happened because of SEN and certainly didnt make them suddenly top of the class or out of place. (But Would have cost the gov ££££ which it wouldnt if they had started a year later. )

A school which is good at helping all strugglers or good with helping kids socially or small classes there may well be no observable age related difference.

According to the ks2 results and gcses etc the results have clearly not evened out on a top level across the country by end of primary. People choose to believe that it does because, really there is not way to make things equal, everyone wants to believe that it is ability.

It might not be one older child though, it could be 5/6 older children (depending who defers) born any time from April.

True could be 5/12 so 12.5 if 30 class.
However if being the youngest makes no difference then being youngest of 17m wouldnt make any (more) difference.
I think it's unlikely at the moment so many would i think stats said 2% maybe across country. So maybe one in a year group.

My son is 14 months older than any August born in his year (if there is any) and yet he fits in perfectly in his year group and if anything still seems immature in comparison to some of his friends. He is in the average band academically so just because he’s the eldest in the year doesn’t make him automatically smarter. I would have no qualms moving him up a year later on if he went streaks above all his peers (which I think is unlikely) My biggest concern was the damage that could be done if he started when not ready which would be very hard to overturn wheras delaying and finding out later on he was bored and exceeding in all areas could be rectified by moving up a year which is easier to do than repeating a year.

However if being the youngest makes no difference then being youngest of 17m wouldnt make any (more) difference

But as you say, being the youngest has been proven to make a difference overall? So being the youngest of 17 months even more so.
My point was more around the teachers managing to differentiate learning across such a broad spectrum. Teachers being too stretched is a disadvantage to every pupil, even the oldest and/or the most able.

My LO has a last-week-in-august birthday. Couldn't read or write before starting reception. Loves loves loves school. Caught up with all the early writers after a term.
Reception is 60% even 70% playing. 9 til 3.30 is shorter than many children's nursery hours.
I massively sympathise as I was worried myself but it turned out wonderfully and no reason to think it will not be the same for your DS.

tennisracquet that’s really reassuring thank you. It’s good to hear. The more I think about it I really don’t think waiting another year would be right for him.
And that’s true about nursery - at the moment he’s in 8.30-6!

Oops name change fail 🤦‍♀️

1 child being 17m older would make no difference to the other children, it may make a positive difference to the school
Less differentiation in yr 1 for the strugglers
Better results for both year groups

Some of the issue with being summer born is not really in relation to the rest of the class but the dc against their own development vs school and curriculum expectations.
An individual child is generally more mature 12m older, more able to grasp the curriculum, physically bigger, stronger and crucially able to concentrate for longer.

It is possible to see all the struggles you would not have had if they hadnt been in that setting at that age. Just as you can see that say their writing was suddenly very good starting yr 1 because they were ready to learn but they had missed the learning in reception as they couldnt hold the pen. Forcing them the learn before ready can lead to bad habits that are ingrained.
Some parents hot house kids so thry are several years ahead say in maths, this would have more affect on how much differentiation the teacher/school need to do and may give a false impression of the child's 'ability'.

I've been told by teachers that by secondary, birth month won't matter. Summer born will catch up and it evens out.

My DD is mid July and I noticed a difference between her and Autumn babies when she started school. But it's not about ability at 4 years old. Teachers know and expect a difference. It's more important they can put their shoes on, get dressed after PE and be fully toilet trained for year R.

DD is now year 4, and she has overtaken some of her autumn born friends in ability (when they were previously ahead of her). The bottom line, even if they need extra support or are bottom of the class for the early years, does it matter? Parental support is more important. Children all develop at different rates in terms of both emotional maturity and intelligence.

I wouldn't hold a child back, as I'm not sure what benefit it will bring at secondary. They will always be out of year which I understand makes secondary applications very difficult.

So i am in this position also, I was born at the end of August and didn't attend reception went into year one and did very well academically as a child. However my DS is a July baby and has a severe speech and language (comprehension) delay of say 18 months - i have the LEA willing to put resource and money into helping him transition into reception (he already gets 1-1 funding at nursery) but i wonder if i shouldn't look into holding him back a year.

I have spoke to the three seco's of my nearest school and am still no more enlightened.