Shall I try to delay DD starting school?

[ThirdElephant]

DD is a summer-born 3 year old and I've got to apply for her school place by January. What I'm not sure of is whether to put her in her normal cohort or apply to delay her a year (so she'd start reception a year later at just-turned five rather than just-turned four). They do this pretty commonly in Scotland but it's not as usual in England and can be difficult to get agreed, though it is becoming more common and the government have promised to make it a parental right to delay and to keep them with their adopted cohort (though they're taking their sweet time about it!) DD was not premature and has no SEND. Academically she is fairly able, but socially I would say she's noticeably behind the older kids in her year and she often gravitates towards those younger than her. I asked if she would like to go to big school with children X, Y and Z or stay at playgroup with children A, B and C and she said she'd prefer playgroup.

The research says that summer borns are 30% more likely to suffer depression as teens/adults than their older peers, which is a large part of the reason I am considering the delay, but the unknown of going against the tide a bit scares me.

Any words of wisdom? WWYD?

@ThousandsOfTulips my point is I know my child. I have another who is an august born boy. I may well feel different then, but I don’t appreciate being told what I should do by people who don’t know my child. I have read the statistics but I also know the impact of all sorts of other variables. I think it will be interesting to see the statistics when parents have been able to choose as it’s a recent thing. There are absolutely some children that benefit from a delayed start but others may not.
Out of interest, what happens if children want to participate in a sport, what age would they have to go into? Could they for example represent their county out for age etc? Like I said I may well consider delaying my sons start, I will know more when I see how he grows.
Also like to add I feel extremely privileged to have that option.

I’d send her to school and see how she gets on. I’m envisioning a 16 year old watching others her age go off to college to prepare for uni/the workplace while she’s still at school. Must be a weird feeling and almost infantilising?

There’s also the risk of other kids making fun of the fact she was ‘held back’ a year because let’s face it, kids can be cruel about things they don’t understand.

She may also get frustrated as she develops her knowledge and could find the processes too simple, especially as you’ve said she’s doing well academically.

She’ll develop her social skills from being around other kids.

[quote Italiandreams]@ThousandsOfTulips my point is I know my child. I have another who is an august born boy. I may well feel different then, but I don’t appreciate being told what I should do by people who don’t know my child. I have read the statistics but I also know the impact of all sorts of other variables. I think it will be interesting to see the statistics when parents have been able to choose as it’s a recent thing. There are absolutely some children that benefit from a delayed start but others may not.
Out of interest, what happens if children want to participate in a sport, what age would they have to go into? Could they for example represent their county out for age etc? Like I said I may well consider delaying my sons start, I will know more when I see how he grows.
Also like to add I feel extremely privileged to have that option.[/quote]
Nobody is telling you what to do about your own child. People are telling the OP how she can make an informed decision about her child because she asked.

People have said “ I don’t know why you wouldn’t” .. that is absolutely pushing her one way

We have an August born son, and we chose to defer. This was based on two key factors: one, he had had a lot of change in his young life with us moving twice and quite a few changes in his EY childcare provision. We thought he would benefit from a further year of consistency (then COVID took that away from us!). Secondly, my husband is from a country with an older school age and he is very vocal in his belief that we start formal learning far too early in the UK (by formal I mean KS1 onwards). This is backed up by research that shows children in countries where they start school at a later age overall do better (we'll put to one side for now the confounding factors that may also be causing this....).

Ultimately though, you have to do what is right for your child. Do some research, do some critical thinking and make your decision that way.

@Italiandreams

You seem to be in great need to justify the choices you made for your kids.

The phrase - ‘I don’t know why parents didn’t defer if they had a choice’ - isn’t about you. It’s just a simple common sense approach, given data and risks.

No one has a crystal ball. And certainly, at the age of school application - at 3yo - no one can ‘know’ their child to predict their performance and experience at school for the next 10+ - both academical and social.

But we do KNOW that all the data points to risks and negative outcomes for the summer borns.
There is NO data that shows that summer borns fare better by not being differed.

So - to summarise:

• Not deferring has potential to negatively affect your child
• Deferring has NO risks and possible upside

What is the logical conclusion?

The logical conclusion is that everyone should research all evidence and decide for themself. There are many reasons people might chose not to defer and let’s be honest if they did the education system wouldn’t cope. It’s very insulting to say “ I don’t know why anyone would not defer” it’s as you are not able to understand all children are different. I may well defer my other child but I would never dream of saying to another parent that I don’t know why they didn’t make the same decision as me. My child is very happy at nursery and I think it is absolutely for the best for her to stay with her peers. If she was unhappy I may feel differently. I am simply saying do not try to suggest people are wrong for not making the same choice as you - which saying you don’t know why people wouldn’t defer us doing.

I’d defer

@Italiandreams

The logical conclusion is that everyone should research all evidence and decide for themself. There are many reasons people might chose not to defer and let’s be honest if they did the education system wouldn’t cope. It’s very insulting to say “ I don’t know why anyone would not defer” it’s as you are not able to understand all children are different. I may well defer my other child but I would never dream of saying to another parent that I don’t know why they didn’t make the same decision as me. My child is very happy at nursery and I think it is absolutely for the best for her to stay with her peers. If she was unhappy I may feel differently. I am simply saying do not try to suggest people are wrong for not making the same choice as you - which saying you don’t know why people wouldn’t defer us doing.

Lol. If everyone deferred of course the education system could cope! It would just be that reception cohorts contained children between 4 and 6 months and 5 and 6 months instead of 4 and 5.

I have a June born, August born and December born. My august born was more than ready for school and my December born is the one who has struggled the most.

Ppl deferring summer born come up with just pathetic reasons most of the time. Some kids struggle and some don't. When is the cut off point because some parents are worried little Rosie has a 30% more of being depressed ffs!

But not everybody would defer so it wouldn't be a neat 12m spread.
As it stands, if op does defer, her DD could be 15m older than the youngest kids in class.
Fine for the first year maybe. Boring as shit a few years down the line and difficult when she's starting puberty in a class full of little kids, and missing out on all the opportunities offered to kids her actual age.

I delayed by a term which worked well

If they did then then spring borns would become the new summer borns! Someone has to be the youngest!

@KeyErro

But not everybody would defer so it wouldn't be a neat 12m spread. As it stands, if op does defer, her DD could be 15m older than the youngest kids in class. Fine for the first year maybe. Boring as shit a few years down the line and difficult when she's starting puberty in a class full of little kids, and missing out on all the opportunities offered to kids her actual age.

I was responding to the poster who wrote:

*There are many reasons people might chose not to defer and let’s be honest if they did the education system wouldn’t cope

Which is clearly nonsense, for the reason I explianed.

Absolutely not nonsense as your suggestion just means that spring born children would how up in the data in the way currently someone born in the summer does now. There has to be a cut off and the youngest will always have less experience of the world and be less mature .

I wish I'd deferred my son he's in year 1 now and was put on the SEN register at the end of reception he does really struggle with all of the school work. I'm not sure if they'd of kept him in the group or moved him straight in to year 1 though? He loved reception it's just the change to year 1 that has been quite a jump for him

@Italiandreams

If they did then then spring borns would become the new summer borns! Someone has to be the youngest!

It's not about "being the youngest". It's about them being 2 years younger than the youngest children that start school in most of the best education systems in the world. Quite simply, this is not the right environment for a child of 4, developmentally. Especially when they turn 5 and start KS1.

Yes it would be better if all children started later, but the summerborns in the UK suffer the most detriment from it because they are so young at that point. Hence the Government backing the change to admissions policy.

These kinds of effects, on academic performance and mental health, are less pronounced the older children are when they first begin school. In countries that begin school at aged 6-7 there is hardly any difference in outcomes between the oldest and youngest in a year group. In the UK, the difference between the mental health and attainment of summerborns persists all the way through.

The issue is that the summerborns are in many cases still too young in terms of attention spans, emotional development, even fine motor skills, to begin school when they have just turned 4. Not that they are younger than other children in their cohort.

If the school year was moved so the springborn children were the youngest, at 4 years 6 months+, the effects would not be the same.

The data is all there is you care to look at it rather than misinterpreting people's posts.

@Italiandreams

Absolutely not nonsense as your suggestion just means that spring born children would how up in the data in the way currently someone born in the summer does now. There has to be a cut off and the youngest will always have less experience of the world and be less mature .

Nope. You've misunderstood entirely.

"someone has to be the youngest" as long as it is not your Charlie you mean.

Anyway, it depends how late your summer born is. If they are easily close to being the youngest in the class, then sending them in and seeing what happens is the fastest path to private education or just tutoring if you are lucky. The problems do not show up in reception and year 1. If they are that young deferring might save you some future headache. And create some headches for sports and clubs. Depends on what's important to you. The early summer borns do stand a better chance of not feeling the pressure as much and less of them need as much support as they move through the school system.

DD was youngest in the year of 65 children. She was actually bored at school the first few weeks. Moving forward, she's 20 now. She got A*AA in A levels, has gone to uni and had the confidence to do a year at a uni abroad. I know they're all different, but it would have been the worst thing I could have done to keep her at home.

How many times does it need to be said? It's not about being the yougest in the cohort. This has pretty much zero impact in systems where kids start aged 6-7. It's about children in the UK starting school so much younger which has very negative impacts, particularly on the very youngest. Research has shown it unequivocally. Children who have just turned 4 do not benefit developmentally from being in school. Hence the Government's commitment to change the admissions policy.

If you were suggesting that formal education should start later I would agree , having taught for many years I completely agree that Year 2 is when many children are ready to start learning, and formal learning is too soon before that. I took this into account hugely when choosing a school.
But just shifting the starting age a few months will not make a huge difference. There would definitely be data to show spring borns did less well, which is why I think it should be parental choice and people should be careful about how they voice their opinion’s. By all means defer but so not say you can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t.

My son is August born. Was lagging in reception and half of yr 1. We worried. Leapfrogged in middle of year 1. I guess he just caught up. Looking at him now (ages 10) it would be horrific if he was a year below. He'd be so bored.
Emotionally yes he seems immature at times compared to classmates but not abnormally so and it doesn't hold him back.
If your DD is academically able I'd encourage you to start her at school and let her find her feet.
Any year will have a spread of 12 month age ranges. Someone has to be youngest!

@Italiandreams

If you were suggesting that formal education should start later I would agree , having taught for many years I completely agree that Year 2 is when many children are ready to start learning, and formal learning is too soon before that. I took this into account hugely when choosing a school. But just shifting the starting age a few months will not make a huge difference. There would definitely be data to show spring borns did less well, which is why I think it should be parental choice and people should be careful about how they voice their opinion’s. By all means defer but so not say you can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t.

The data that already exists monitored springborns too. There was minimal impact on them from starting school at 4.5+. Still not as good as starting later at say, 6. But nowhere near the lifelong negative impacts on children starting school just after their 4th birthday.

Yes I'd be all for moving everyone's starting age much, much later. Child development data absolutely supports that hence why most developed countries do that. But in the absence of that, allowing summerborns to defer at least mitigates the most serious impacts of UK policy to start school so very young.

As I said it is not about who is the youngest in the year, it's about when the average child reached the developmental stage where school is beneficial or, at least, not massively detrimental to a significant proportion of that age group.

I was nearly 2 years older than some of my class mates because I was labled emotionally immature at age 5 and held back. The problem was that I was not physically immature. By the time adolescence came along I felt like Elf being a foot taller than my friends, developing a women's shape and starting my periods before everyone else. Because I was in the younger year, I hadn't learnt the same as everyone else my age so the consequence was that people at clubs etc thought I was slow. It really knocked my self esteem. I chose not to defer my DD when the teachers recommended it for the reasons above. My view is they should make the allowance for her being younger. I wouldn't delay unless there were serious additional needs issues.