Would you send your bright September born to reception a year early?

[Triadpeta]

My Dd was born in August last year. DH and I were chatting about delaying her when she starts school (she's only 6 months so bit premature I admit!) as my cousin has done it for her son. By that I mean she starts in reception a year later, not putting her straight into Year 1.

A quick trawl on MN and it seems it can be quite a divisive topic. Many people seem to say that they're glad they didn't delay their bright August born as they are thriving in their year and would have been really bored in the year below, even though they are only weeks, if not days, older than some September children.

So does that mean that there are a lot of bright September kids who are also bored? And if so, would you want to have / have had the option to send them a year 'early' (i.e. when they were at the very end of being 3, almost 4) instead of them staying in nursery or preschool for another year?

I guess what I'm asking is it seems it's possible to delay a child but not accelerate them - would people want the system to be flexible in both directions, depending on what's right for the child? And if you have a September child who seems bored in their year, would you have done it?

I wouldn't send early.

That's interesting. If she had gone a year early would she have coped socially as well as enjoying more of a challenge academically? If you could go back you'd apply early?

I guess it's so hard to know either way when they're 4!

People generally, not just on MN, are anti-deferral because - and I am so confident of this - they think we should all just maintain the status quo as it’s always been.

As well as a Sept born girl I also have a May born boy, who I deferred because he’s autistic. He started displaying some exceptional abilities with reading and numbers before he turned four. I still deferred him. His social and emotional delays were worth nurturing way more than his academic abilities needed stretching.

@Triadpeta I don't know whether she'll cope socially. I think her showing austistic traits is her biggest problem socially. Her older sister similarly struggled with friendships on and off. DC1 is a Spring baby and I don't see any difference in coping socially yet.

I think not rocking the boat and keeping to the 'rules' are definitely very strong players, even if those rules don't necessarily help everyone. Not just in this issue I mean, in so many situations in life!

My bright September born was academically ready the year before but not socially or emotionally. She went the correct year, thrived in reception (probably actually got pushed a bit more than usual as lockdown meant I followed her interests when we finished the work) and fell apart when it got to more formal learning. It turns out she has ASD and I suspect it's no coincidence her friends are the summer borns as her interests are young for her age.

I wonder if the whole system was more flexible (any child could move up if bored, but down if struggling) all the way through school it might serve every child better than having to 'stick with what you're given'.

But I do mean that in an 'Ideal world' situation. I completely understand the logistical nightmare of that and haven't the first idea on how to implement it so please don't anyone point out the practical flaws in my idea!

The other point is if people are making a decision for a csa start. Applications end in jan when they are 3.5. So they are very young.

Asd/adhd can make them behave years younger. So huge disagree between academics and social and behaviour.

I think a placid hardworking sociable summer born would be fine in cohort.

But i do notice the winter borns are generally more popular.
The first to get left out of parties are the youngest

To add to my previous post, ability wise I could have started school a year early so at 4 (in the US at the time) What my parents and the school did instead was I skipped reception and just started in grade 1 when I started after turning 5. That worked fine.

Aw that's sad! I didn't know that!

Acceleration's not as common as it used to be I think? Both me and my sis were put up a year in primary school. Strange system in Hampshire then as primaries went to Y7 - so we both did Y7 at primary school and then our independent secondary. But that was fine. Meant primary school was more challenging and high school never felt boring as it was a different system.

DS is September born - he always coasted and did really well which means his work ethic is not what it should be. He did well in GCSEs and A levels but whether he achieved his full potential is less certain.... He would have benefitted from being the youngest in the year like his sister. She really worked hard and pushed herself and continues to do so.

I started school in 1980 just as I turned 5, but it was seriously looked into (by the local authority I assume at the time) whether I should start at 4, as I could read when I was three at nursery school, and I saw an educational psychologist a few times. It was finally concluded that I should start in my normal age group as I wasn't advanced socially. In fact probably a bit behind being an only child- wasn't actually interested in other children at first as I just found them annoying!

I can't think of any advantage there would have been in starting school early. I did sometimes feel I stuck out like a sore thumb as I was very tall for my age, plus the oldest and bright, but I only ended up 5'7" and I didn't feel very tall once I went to secondary school.

DD1 was at the other end of the scale and July born. When she started school there was actually a policy to start summer borns later so she started in January when she was 4.5. As she was quite advanced for her age she would have been fine starting when she was just 4, but I thought there was no rush and she enjoyed another term of nursery anyway. I think being a clever summer born worked very well for her as there were several bright children in the class who were older. And adjustments were made for age when she did the 11+ and got into a super selective grammar- she only just scraped through on the score so that very much helped! She thrived at the school.

Agree

Do you think them, then if your DC had been born a few weeks later but had a September birthday you would have applied to send them to school early (so that they'd end up in the year they're in now)?

No! I had a bright September born child who, socially, could have gone the year earlier. However, she is now struggling quite a bit academically, and if she had gone the year earlier with older children, I think it would be must worse.

@Triadpeta I think the whole point is that for kids starting in the UK state system there is now no mechanism for starting a year early? Anecdotally some may have liked it - but anyone who actually had it in this country in the last 20 years is almost definitely talking about an independent school

No, absolutely not-even if it were possible, which it isn’t. My Autumn-born DC thrived in their year and have left school now with great social and academic skills. I definitely would have considered deferring them had they been late summer babies though.

I’d never push forward even for an academically able child, there’s too much of a studied benefit on being older in the school class to even consider it.

I also generally disagree with the principle of delaying summer born starters. From an ideology stance, the children should get proper support in their “correct year”. However, we considered this for our summer born DD because we know the reality is that the support isn’t actually there!

Even though you recognise the benefit of being the oldest you don't agree with delaying summer borns?

There’s no harm done in waiting another year, whereas there can be harm done emotionally in starting school too young.

(I have an autumn born and a summer born).

Correct.

I would consider it, because research shows it’s beneficial. I’m not saying it’s not better to be the oldest, but someone has to be the youngest. I know it’s hypocritical, but like most parents I want the best for my child so we considered it (but ultimately decided not to defer).

However, I believe that the option to defer just enables the class age range to be even bigger and creates another unnecessary age cutoff but one that can only be used by some. It’s often the kids with the most “advantaged” kids that do this.

I think that the educational system should cater appropriately and provide proper support properly for all pupils. It doesn’t (no doubt due to lack of funding) do this as it stands.

My daughter is a September baby.

If you’d ask me in the months leading up to her 4th birthday I’d have said (costs aside) I’m pleased I had her in September not August as she’d feels to young…..Ask me that question in the January after (now 4y and 4 months) she was BORED at nursery and started to hate it!!! Her behaviour went downhill - we worked with nursery and started introducing learning activity at home!

When I started school I remember in reception that the later in the year children started school after Christmas- i might be imagining it!

My daughter is very bright BUT her emotional maturity does feel a little behind now she is 14 years old she definitely isn’t (thankfully) as much of a rush to grow up still has innocent about her & her peer group are very similar. If she was in the year above then I think it would have been more noticeable - there is a child in the school that is their age but in year 8 she does hang out with the year 9 girls.

DS is a late August baby and started reception at only just 4yo. Academically he was more than ready, if anything he wasn't challenged enough. Socially was a different matter though, it was towards the end of the school year (he was still over a month away from turning 5) when we felt he was about 'ready' for starting the social wilderness that was school (breaks, playground, lunch time).

He is smart and perfectly 'school shaped' (square peg in a square hole!) so he sailed through his primary years with little effort, great results, rarely noticed, academically bored, using his entire energy and interest on navigating social stuff/friendships.

I did at times wonder, perhaps if we had delayed his start, he would have been more comfortable socially (that first year was tough!), plus, then he would have been not just 'top of class' but properly standing out, which perhaps would have gotten him into some 'gifted' programme or something and he would have had some challenge, instead of just being left to coast as he was in his 'proper' year.

During Y6 we moved abroad and here his birthday falls just on the other side of the cut-off, so he is in theory one of the oldest in the year below rather than youngest in current year.
There is more flexibility here and perhaps if we had pushed, he could have gone into the year matching number of years at school, so into the 7th year of school rather than cohort, which is the 6th year of school, so essentially Y5. We didn't push though, as there was a new language to get to grips with, plus many, boys especially, start a year later, so he would have been youngest by nearly two years or something in the year above. In his now new 'correct' cohort he ought to be one of the oldest but actually isn't, as so many of his classmates started late. He did have an extra year of school though (doing Y5/6th year of school twice). Plus here the first two years they do not learn any reading/writing/numbers at all, so in fact DS has had three years more academic learning than his new classmates, despite being in the correct cohort.

So it is not really surprising that despite the language challenge, he was identified as 'gifted' within a few weeks of starting, and was enrolled into the school's gifted programme. Which meant he got to skip one morning/week of regular classes and spend that time doing projects with a small group of other 'gifted' kids instead. This was exactly what I had wondered when musing what might have happened if we had delayed his reception entry back in England.

We have been here for three years now and have to say from this experience:
Academically, being youngest in year and among the top of the class, and coasting along with little challenge, was much better than being 'oldest' (not really) in class, being streets ahead of everyone, being recognized/labelled/separated out as 'gifted', being bored to death 80% of the time, and getting that 'gifted' workshop one morning/week for extra challenge.

Socially, a later start would have been much better. Starting at just four was too early for DS, but even if starting later but within cohort, being youngest among his friends brings its own challenges. I really liked how after our move, he was allowed to be a child/his own age much more/longer. In contrast to always trying to keep up with the kids who were all older than him, taller, more mature, into more 'grown-up' things, he was able to be running around playing catch for longer.

To me, with DS, the social side outweighs the academic. The lack of academic challenge/growth/stretching, is something we can address at home, but if he is socially miserable at school, there is little we can do to help. I'd rather he spend his days bored at school but happy with his friends.
It depends on the child though and some kids will truly suffer from lack of intellectual stimulation for such a large part of their waking lives. And get nothing from the relationships with similar aged kids. So they might weigh the factors differently.

So that's my view/experience as parent of a bright, academically ready summer born. In our case, delaying would probably have resulted in an overall happier experience.

You can't. You may be able to do so in private schools but not in state.

That's interesting, thanks for your point. I agree that the system isn't what it could be, and some kids won't get the support they need - and I see the potential difficulties with stretching out and age band, especially for the younger kids of the year below.

But it definitely changes the game when it's your own kid who might be disadvantaged