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?

v odd idea that you would base your child's educational pathway on your desire as a parent to 'enjoy' them? and how could you possibly know that being with a childminder was more or less 'boring' than a nursery?!

DD is Y13. She's already annoyed at being one of the youngest in the year. Imagine if I'd put her back a year when she was 4!!!

It's very easy to idealise young childhood and think that delaying starting school would always be positive. But delaying a child just because you can is an odd decision. There may be issues when it comes to transferring to secondary school (ie they may have to go into the correct cohort / might not be eligible to sit the 11+ in the age group they've been educated with) and sports wise there can also be eligibility issues - ie you have to compete in your correct age group rather than the one you've been educated with.

Of course there are summer born kids who would benefit from staying down a year BUT that doesn't mean it's a universally good thing for all summer borns

I think many people on this thread don’t quite realise importance of both academic and social development.
Yes - there are plenty bright summer borns. And they do fine at school. I have those myself.
But socially - you can see the difference very clearly - and those differences stay with them into secondary. And become even stronger as puberty hits them at different times.

Then, again - there are silly things like actual facts - exam performance success in life (measured in many different ways) - and summer cohort (and Aug more markedly) consistently underperforming.

Add to that things that are not tracked - self confidence; popularity; sports participation - being on teams; leadership opportunities/lack off - and there is NOTHING at all positive about being the youngest in the year.

To anyone who says - my 4yo was bored at school, it’s a bit ridiculous. School is play based at that age. Any kid who reports being ‘bored’ because they already know the letters/numbers - has probably got used to constant parental attention/entertainment. And should learn how to play/read/interact with peers without being prompted. A skill they’ll need in life.

I do not quite know why people in the UK think it’s some sort of personal failure to defer their summer borns. In the US it’s a common practice as and it gives kids time to mature a bit.
4yo is really young to start school. And at that age - being just 4 and nearly 5 makes a huge difference in social development and stamina - both needed for starting school.

In the Netherlands deferment is quite common, but the opposite as well, sometimes kids skip a grade. It's less rigid than in the UK.

Children being bored in reception can definitely be problematic. My DD hated it so much she would make herself sick on purpose so she wouldn't have to go to school. Luckily she is challenged a bit more in year 1.

I think a lot of problems with settling in at school are blamed by parents on kids ‘being bored’.
And if your child is coming home and says - i already know my letters but teacher makes me recite them over and over - you need to speak to the teacher and HM if that is in fact the case. It is unlikely that a teacher can not accommodate a 4yo child who is more advanced than their peers. As play, art, etc are a huge part of their day - it’s only really requited in literacy and numeracy. And it’d take a really lazy teacher not to be able to do that.
But a child making herself sick not to go to school is more likely trying to avoid some social situation they are uncomfortable with. Or they are simply too exhausted to spend the whole day at school.

And kids try to avoid school - parents need to be talking to teachers about that and not wait a whole year.

Work in Y1 is only marginally more ‘challenging’ than in R. Key difference - kids are used to being at school; have figured out friendship groups/interactions; and are more mature and physically more able to spend the whole day at school.

Don't forget about childcare costs (yes, I KNOW school is not childcare). But delaying a year is another year where You're responsible for those hours

I have an early September child and while I think he would have done OK academicslly had he been a week or so younger, I think socially it's been great for him being the oldest in the class. It's also good for sports, he's sporty and has the advantage of being old and tall for his age group. Am feeling it today though as all my friends with similar age kids are getting their secondary places and mine still has a year to go!

I'm in a group of friends and we were lucky enough to all be pregnant around the same time, our babies were born May, June, August and November. My friend whose child was born in November wishes her son had gone to school this year , all of his nursery friends left for school and he is more than ready for it. The one with the August child didn't defer either and her child is doing absolutely fine.

Your child may struggle initially being a summer born in the younger years , but I don't think it makes a huge difference in the long run academically

I do worry he will coast though as he is very bright and seems to spend much of the time helping other kids! Mind you I did the same despite being youngest in my year and it didn't do me any harm

I have a September birthday and was a year ahead at school. I did well academically but struggled with being the youngest in later years (last to drive, turned 18 as I was starting uni etc).

It wouldn't have occurred to me to defer our very late August ds, and I can't really imagine him in the year below. Socially more than fine, physically large and very sporty, went to Cambridge etc. DH was also August born and very similar. However I don't think I'd have pushed for an accelerated start if such a thing had existed and he'd been born a few days later. It's so difficult to know how it'll all turn out at 4, and despite our experience I'm aware there are lots of well-known advantages to being oldest in the year.

Not me, but my friend’s September born is school in the cohort above what he should be.

He started Reception two days before he was 5 years old and excelled. As a result, at the end of the year the school put him straight into Year 2 so he missed Year 1 completely.

He’s now in Year 5 and still excelling.

The school he’s currently at had initially told his mum that he would have to repeat Year 6 as he can’t go up to Secondary School a year early, but the secondary school headteacher has done away with that and said they’d be happy to accept him coming up with his current year group.

As an add-on, at the other end of the scale I had a summer-born son (late august) and I did defer his start.

I do wonder if the boundaries in this country were more flexible, like they seem to be in other countries, then the heat might be taken out of some of the decisions. Every child is different and parents must make a decision in their best interests but some of the anti-defer arguments I've seen (not on this thread particularly, but on MN in general) do seem a bit rooted in 'just follow the rules', regardless of any actual benefits/non benefits.

I most people here agree that in general it's more beneficial to delay than accelerate (there have been some posters who would have liked to accelerate but these seem a much lesser number). If the school system itself was more flexible - and more accessible for all - maybe it would be more accepted without the controversy.

Honestly I think if you've got a really bright child (I have one) they will be bored even if they are a year ahead so you might as well keep them in their age-appropriate year group.

DD is a bright September-born who started school shortly before her 5th birthday.

She loved Reception. As a fluent reader she could read any of the books in the classroom rather than having to wait for a teacher to read them to the class and could write as much as she wanted to. As one of the oldest she was less prone to feeling tired on busy days and those extra months of development meant that she had the motor skills that she needed to make the most of the resources.

Sending her to school a year early would have been pointless. The work in the year above would still have been far too easy. Her teachers estimated that she was around 4 years ahead of her actual age. Moving up a year or starting early would have caused more problems than it would have solved.

She's now a teenager and is very glad that I didn't send her early as she wouldn't have been with her current friends!

I would have jumped at the chance to send my very bright Spring born daughter a year early and academically it would have been great. However now she's in junior school I'm glad she's not a year ahead as although she is bored by the easy work and we have to teach her at home the kids in the year above have phones and Whatsapp drama etc. This wouldn't be an issue with a kid a year behind.

There is overwhelming evidence that acceleration benefits gifted kids (those in the top 2-3% of ability). See https://www.accelerationinstitute.org/ and https://www.hoagiesgifted.org/acceleration.htm
However it doesn't benefit kids who are bright but not gifted. The question is how to tell the difference. It generally takes a 1:1 assessment by a skilled assessor (e.g. an educational or clinical psychologist), and it's more accurate if done after 4 yrs 6 months.
The UK has an earlier school start than most countries, and a transition from EYFS play-based learning to more formal classroom learning in Y1. Most children will enjoy and benefit from staying in EYFS in their "normal" chronological year group. Boredom among gifted children tends to really kick in in Y1 when there is a switch to formal classroom learning and they are no longer free to choose their own activities. Skipping a year at this point may be beneficial, but an assessment should be undertaken to determine suitability. For a year skip, you'd generally be looking for index scores of 130 or above. Children with strengths in particular subjects can be facilitated by subject acceleration, i.e. attending an older class for that subject. Some primaries organise all classes to do English or Maths at the same time each day to facilitate this.
The reluctance of British teachers to accelerate gifted kids stems from ignorance of the wide body of research which is strongly supportive of acceleration. I have heard every risible excuse under the sun for why children cannot be accelerated, even when they are bored rigid and an educational psychologist has assessed in detail and formally recommended the acceleration. The true reasons why British teachers won't accelerate are ignorance, complacency, preference of folklore to empirical research, fear of the unknown, fear that accelerating one child will be the thin end of the wedge and will ruffle feathers of other parents, and prioritising the smooth running of a conveyor belt over the welfare of individual children.

My son is in Year 1 but spends every morning in a Year 2 class for maths, spellings and english lessons. He then goes back to his Year 1 class to have lunch there and spend the afternoon with them when they do more fun based learning.

I think when this school year ends and the next one begins, the Headteacher wants him to go straight into Year 3 so effectively missing Year 2 altogether.

I have big reservations about this though and I have told them I do not want this to happen.

From an academic point of view he can keep up with the year 2 class no problem, he’s in their top groups and still tells me the work is too easy, but from an emotional and social angle he’d be out of his depth. I think we’d be doing more harm than good if we made him skip a year of school and be placed in another class.

The problem can be that gifted children may not even be at the social level of their own peers nevermind the peers a year above.
It's a tricky thing to balance, and some children will be fine, but for others it's worth considering their social needs as often being "properly" gifted is accompanied with at least some social differences and fairly commonly high functioning autism.
Not talking about just clever children, but when there's a significant difference in academic ability.

@SplitFountainPen Not so. Look at the actual empirical research on the subject:

"The results of this study strongly suggest that social-emotional characteristics of accelerated gifted students and non-accelerated gifted students are largely similar. These results thus do not support worries expressed by teachers about the acceleration of gifted students. Our findings parallel the outcomes of earlier studies in the United States and Germany in that we observed that acceleration does not harm gifted students, not even in the case of multiple grade skipping. On the contrary, there is a suggestion in the data that accelerated students are more socially competent than non-accelerated students. The findings in this study can reassure those parents and teachers who worry about the social-emotional consequences of acceleration in school: If a student is gifted, acceleration seems to be a sound and, in many cases, appropriate measure in gifted education"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231740228_Social-emotional_characteristics_of_gifted_accelerated_and_non-accelerated_students_in_the_Netherlands

https://ncrge.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/982/2022/12/ch3-A-Nation-Empowered-Vol2-3.pdf

Regarding your assertion that "being "properly" gifted is accompanied with at least some social differences and fairly commonly high functioning autism." It's easy to bandy about phrases like "fairly commonly" but where's your evidence?
I've seen studies where between 7 and 15% of gifted subjects were found to have either autism or some form of twice-exceptionality. That implies that between 85% and 93% did not. A substantial majority of gifted students are not autistic. While students who are twice-exceptional may have more complex needs, that does not mean they should not be accelerated.

I had a very clever (gifted?) child. She was the youngest in the class but also top of the class in both reading and maths and was accelerated into the year above for these subjects. She was never bored though and would have been quite happy to just do easy work. I expect a lot of kids are the same.

My DC3 was born at the end of August too, although he's only 6 months I'm already thinking ahead to potential school deferral. The only negative so far is an extra year of nursery costs! Although this is of course with zero knowledge of my DC3s personality! My DC1 is a September birthday so will start school at almost 5 this year. I have a friend whose baby was born a year before DC3 (less 2 weeks!) so they will technically be in the same school year. She's walking, running, talking etc vs DC3 who has just started weaning and still learning to sit independently. Crazy.

I don't think you will have an extra year of nursery costs will you? Because you'll get 30 hours funded (as your child will still be 4 years old) - which is roughly equivalent to the hours they'd be in school. Anything outside that you will have to pay for of course but so you would with any before or after-school costs too? Please someone correct me if I'm wrong about this because I've been thinking about that as lot recently as it's an often-cited downside to delaying.

You may end up with paying for a few hours a week if you take into account an average school day is 6 and a half hours or so, making the weekly equivalent of 32/33 hours - but you certainly won't have to pay a full year's worth of nursery fees

Gosh. What did she do when she 'ran out' of years above her? Did she have continuation work to do independently? Or did she have an easier ride for a year or two?

@Triadpeta my DC1 goes to nursery 5 days a week on the 30hrs and I still pay around £500 a month. So still quite a significant cost although much cheaper than multiple children!

I don't know.
Looked out the window, fiddled with her clothes, did doodles, day dreamed. If it's relevant, I don't really get bored myself, I'm very good at day dreaming. I know it's not productive use of time, but it is what it is.