Youngest in the year - reception

[yaboreme]

Hi,

I was just looking to see how things are/ turned out for any of you that had summer born children who started school at 4.

My son was 4 in August and I'm really worried that I made the wrong decision to send him to reception after only turning 4, 2 weeks prior to the start of the school year.

He's emotionally a little behind and is a little behind his peers with reading, writing etc but I have been assured that he knows the concept of simple math and is very enthusiastic to learn.

My concern is that he may have benefited from an additional year to be 5 when he started to be of a more similar age to his peers.

Am I worrying about nothing? Or should I enquire about resitting reception (if that's another option).

Hopefully this makes sense.

Thank you

Would anyone here if they had a September born be fighting to get that child into school a year early when they turn 4?

Babies was what my 4 year old called them, that’s why it’s in quote marks, she was desperate to go to school with the ‘big kids’

I'm curious to know where people got the idea that summer born children are "too young" to start reception?

Maybe the government research that lead to the summerborn guidance in the first place.

@Bear2014
It is a given. Legally anyone can defer their summerborn child.
In my experience the majority of people on Mumsnet are extremely poorly informed on this topic and only able to contribute their own personal experiences. They then get very defensive when people who are informed share statistical information which has a basis in science not personal experience experience.

My son was born on 1st August 1995.

I don't know what schools are like now but I regretted sending him to be the youngest in his year and wish I had waited another year.

I'm talking about tv early years. When he was older it was fine.

Good point.
My youngest child had a due date of 31st August so he was destined to be either one of the youngest or oldest in his year group. He was late, so just slipped into September. 31st August is an arbitrary line in the sand. There is no reason why a child born at the end of August should really be different to one born at the beginning of September. Logically, one would assume that there are September babies who would be ready to start school just as there are August ones who aren't. Yet August borns are offered the option to defer but September babies aren't given the chance to go early. Why is that? I assume it's because there is no evidence of harm from being the oldest in a cohort. In fact the oldest in a year group are more likely to be the highest achievers - schools are not full of bored September born children failing to achieve their potential as you might expect from the number of people who say their late August babies would have been had they been "held back". However the evidence of potential detriment to August borns is sufficient for government policy to have changed to give parents of Summer babies more choice.
Not everyone will make the same choice of course, for all kinds of reasons, and many Summer born children thrive. I'm one of them in fact. I was the highest academic achiever in my year at school by a considerable margin and one of the youngest, but my individual experience doesn't change the fact that as a group, those at my end of the school year achieve less well than the oldest.
I actually did worry that my youngest would be bored spending another year at nursery as he is bright and sociable and played mainly with older friends. And he did whinge quite a bit initially when a lot of his friends left to go to school but there was no choice in the matter, he got over it and nobody accused me of "holding him back". But I bet they would have done if he'd been born a few days earlier and I'd decided to defer! I'm really glad I didn't have to make that decision actually as I think it's a very hard one. But denying the validity of the statistics because they don't fit with personal experience, as a number of people have done on this thread is as unhelpful as suggesting that every Summer born will struggle. That's not what the data says. The difficulty of course is determining which children will most benefit from deferral and I don't think that there is a foolproof answer to that.

I actually did worry that my youngest would be bored spending another year at nursery as he is bright and sociable and played mainly with older friends. And he did whinge quite a bit initially when a lot of his friends left to go to school but there was no choice in the matter, he got over it and nobody accused me of "holding him back". But I bet they would have done if he'd been born a few days earlier and I'd decided to defer! I'm really glad I didn't have to make that decision actually as I think it's a very hard one. But denying the validity of the statistics because they don't fit with personal experience, as a number of people have done on this thread is as unhelpful as suggesting that every Summer born will struggle. That's not what the data says. The difficulty of course is determining which children will most benefit from deferral and I don't think that there is a foolproof answer to that.

This is similar to my experience and I agree with your points. In my family we had a very stark example as my son is 6 weeks younger than his cousin and they sit either side of the cut off. In this case my niece is "younger" for her age and my son on the more mature side socially and intellectually - although both well within normal variation. It was really apparent when she went to school and my son got a whole other year at home (nursery two days a week) that this was really unfair. The poor girl really struggled and halfway through year one the school suggested she move back a year and repeat the last bit of reception. It was the absolute right move, worked brilliantly well for her, she was suddenly able to keep up with the games she'd found too complicated and intimidating and she went from a failing reader to right where she should be.

Of course I am not saying everyone should make this decision (although actually I do think we start school too young in this country) but what has wound me up on this thread is:
a) denial of the reality that there is a significant disadvantage to being young in the year (at a population level, not to every child obviously); and
b) people confidently stating things that are not true about having to skip a year or about how the funding works.

Another excellent measured post on this thread.

I absolutely agree with the above post.
When my child went deferring wasn't an option. He has gone on to do exceptionally well. One of the things I noticed with my older child was that most of the 'top groups' consisted of older children. Just bring older meant more experience not necessarily any more potential . I actively worked to make sure my ds did not define himself by assessments..it's too easy to set beliefs based on how you do at a ridiculously young age that then set a trajectory. And I agree that we would be much better starting formal school at a later age for all children.

Christ this the comment that has shocked me most in this thread 🤦‍♀️
I'm pretty sure a child deferred who is 5 years and what max 3 months realistically isn't causing some sort of major issue to reception teachers demanding challenges etc
also the assumption that preschool is essentially the same as reception is ignorance to the extreme 🤦‍♀️
preschools do not have to cover any curriculum other than sitting/ listening at circle time
most don't even cover more than the absolute beginning of phonics they certainly aren't on average reading or blending or doing any maths at all preschool is essentially childcare and play based and about emotional and social development
they cover some basic concepts such as books are read front to back and such

maybe our preschool was just crap but I also don't know any kids who did anything more substantial

reception builds on this but so much more I'm honestly astonished at what is covered in reception in my daughters school and the kids literally RUN to greet their teachers and get to school bar a few reserved ones :

in 2 terms the class are now mostly reading by blending decodable books
know all their letters
numbers to 20
basic maths concepts like addition/subtraction, odds and evens, coins, construction of equations
topical subjects like geography, culture, biology etc
writing simple sentences
to compare it to the coverage at preschool and or a childcare setting seems ridiculous to me

and to say because it's not super common in your friends group if fair I also don't know any children deferred but I expect that's it's just seen as the natural step for us rather than because it's best for each child / circumstance

i don't regret for a second sending my child at 4 and 2 weeks to reception but I also am not snotty enough to vilify another parent with a different child for deferring thinking by them doing so they've somehow taken resources away from my child in some bizzare way 🤦‍♀️

oh btw if a child is deferred and then the school think they're well ahead they can suggest them moving back up to year 1 if there is space or even taking some classes with them for phonics and such - many schools do this anyway to join resources

Sorry to be shocking - it's just an observation that if a school class spans 15 months in age then the differences may be more stark for the youngest and resources may be more stretched. But as we have both observed this rarely happens in real life so it's not likely to become a problem.

Our kids did absolutely loads of learning in their excellent preschool attached to their school. So this is my experience that there was a lot of repetition in YR.

I also specifically said that I would never judge anyone and each to their own.