Summer Born Deferred Children Excluded From Team Sports

[David88]

We are currently looking at deferring our daughter as she is a summer born child. She was born in late August putting her just days older than the year group more suited to her educational and emotional needs. Whilst this is being supported we are being told she will be “excluded from all team sports throughout her life” by admissions. Despite her being just 11 days older than the September year group cut off, the ‘U8’, ‘U9’ etc code will apparently exclude her from taking part in all team sports away from school or when her school plays another etc. Does anyone have experience on what pathways there are to allow her to be included with her peers. I understand the FA have a system for football but after speaking to the local council who don’t offer any guidance or help on the subject there seems to be no avenues on this subject. Would anyone have any advice please?

This is a lose-lose situation because if you keep an august-born DC with their correct cohort they will generally be smaller and weaker than the rest of their year group due to their younger age so are unlikely to be selected for any sports teams anyway. If you hold them back to the next year they'd not qualify for the teams for their class group and will have less experience and skills on the sports field than the people in the year above. Does it matter though? It's ok to not be on a sports team if it's the right decision for the child's education.

I have two summer born dc who did not defer (y4 and y7). Never considered deferring and very glad that we didn’t. Also only know of one person who has, none in my dc’s years at school.

for context my dc have no disadvantage, in fact they have several significant advantages in that they’re from a well off, supportive family who values education, genetics are on their side, parents both love reading and education for its own sake. Age related disadvantage is tiny or doesn’t exist compared to these. In reality, both are thriving in school and my eldest in particular is very intelligent (for example she has a reading age of 16, but started school at 4.2 unable to read).

There was little sign of this at age 4 but certainly no additional needs. Both knew the alphabet/could count to ten but neither could read. Both are also tall and at absolutely no disadvantage sporting wise due to their relative age. What I’m saying is that unless there are additional needs present, you have no idea whether the deferral is advantaging or disadvantaging your dc - it would have significantly disadvantaged mine by making them stick out even more. If there no additional needs, I don’t see why you would do this just to make your dc the eldest instead of the youngest.

@Muthaofcats I'm batshit? Really? Did you mean to be so rude?
I've tried to be polite to you, do you know how hard it is though trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't appear to have the intellect to not only answer questions but to actually read other posts correctly?

Of course it is. Whenever you have a cut off someone will be the weakest and youngest.

I have 2 deferred children, one of whom is now in secondary. This has never happened to either of them. We were prepared that it might, for certain sports, either if they played for the school teams and competed or for teams outside of school. We agreed that under those circumstances they might be quite good and interested at the sport and therefore it wouldn't be a big deal. In reality it hasn't come up. Neither are physically big in their cohorts and no sports teams have ever mentioned their birth dates. Only one is playing a particular sport at quite a high level, and in fact she's been put in a (non-school) team of people several years older than her.

I wouldn't let it worry you OP. I encountered a lot of hot air when I was making the decision

I’m glad that I placed my summer born in school when she was five rather than worried that she wouldn’t be able to play netball in school competitions.

there are so many activities and sports where the focus is on personal ability rather than age, and so many clubs outside school.

if she had been in her chronoligical she’d have been much smaller and less physically confident than her autumn born peers that she probably wouldn’t have been picked for class or school teams anyway.

Just to add-apologies if it's been mentioned before but if it has I've missed it-there are also potential insurance issues if playing above age grading. This is particularly relevant to contact sports but any sport catties risk. Having a child playing in a younger group could well invalidate the school or team's insurance. This would be relevant mainly if the older child caused injury to another-the argument being that a contributing factor could be greater size and skill.
I don't know of this is applicable here, but what happens to such children in entrance exams for schools where there is an age related adjustment to the grades, dors anyone know? When mine did the grammar school exams there was some upwards adjustment for the younger to 'compensate' for the difference (not relevant to mine as they are early in the school year).

Because deferring makes the age gap between oldest and youngest bigger and hence disadvantages the youngest in the cohort even more.

Summer borns are not always at a disadvantage. DD is almost youngest in her class. Despite scaremongering posts on here she's not bullied, she has no SEN issues, she's not depressed, she's not anything a certain poster on here has indicated summer borns are likely to have. Me and DH are also summer born, again we haven't gone through any of the above.
I'm not saying no summer borns will experience any negatives however it seems to be MN policy to say that you're practically sentencing your summer born to death if you don't defer. When in real life IMO deferments are a rarity.

Exactly this. SOMEONE has to be the youngest in the year (I have an early summer born, there are hardly any late summer borns in her year so she is actually still one of the youngest - so be it). It's just one of those things. I think you need to suck it up.

We’re the opposite. Sport is a huge part of my August born 13 year olds life and playing in the local football team with his school friends and in school football tournaments with the same friends has massively increased his confidence, sports skills and strengthened friendships. It is very much what works for each individual child. But in relation to the OP, I think you do have to accept that if you’re going to defer then you can’t try and find loopholes that let your child play competitive sport with the year below instead of their chronological year for many sports. It’s a case of weighing up the benefits of it all for your individual child

@David88

Look - realistically, being the youngest in the year won’t put her on most teams either.

But if she turns out sporty - you can resolve it all by placing her into correct team by age group.

Academic and social fit with her cohort is far more important and deferring her will only make it easier for her to navigate school and feel confident.
Kids in UK start formal education way too young. Having just turned 4 vs 5 is a massive difference.

People here like to tell you stories how their kids were the youngest and were ‘fine’ - like its some sort of matter of pride and achievement. It is also ignoring the very clear data that the summer cohort continuously underperforms and differences stay throughout school life, and into A-levels.
And it of course carried with them
into adult life.

If you can give your kid an extra year in nursery to play and mature - do it. She’ll be more ready for school when she starts. And as a result - will be more robust and confident. All things that will have a positive impact on her education and life.

My kids are at the mid and end point of their schooling. And you can still spot the summer ones.

So where would your cut off point be? If all July/August children defer, then those born in June are the youngest. Do you not see that the disadvantage moves to them then?
If you think that 4 is too young to start school (and I'm inclined to agree with that), then the school age could be moved to say, June 30th. That would mean everyone is a little older than 4, but no one is more than a year older than anyone else.

And for the point in the OP, unless a sport has different rules and a different cut off date to 31 August, then OP's child should be playing in her correct cohort, i.e. a year above.

I delayed my youngest (end of August birthday) as I felt academically and socially he fitted in better. I haven’t regretted that for a moment.

If, further down the line he excels at a sport, then he would play with his correct age.

When I’ve put mine in clubs it has mainly because I want to expand their social circle and actively don’t want them playing with the same children as at school.

I have no interest in what others do, it’s up to the parents as to whether they delay or not. I just chose to pursue a route available to us.

Yeah sure but how it currently is, summerborns are always with bigger stronger kids. Just found your wording strange, like it's the natural order for summerborns to be disadvantaged but no one else.

Those other summer borns can delay their start if required though? Not all will feel the need. The evidence is clear about starting formal education too young. If you could protect your child from some pretty scary stats around summer borns, why wouldn’t you?

It's only really available for parents who can afford another year of nursery though, or who don't need childcare. So an August born child who's parents can't afford it or are unaware of the system could now be further disadvantaged by being 16 months younger than the oldest child (if the oldest child is an April birthday).

I don't blame any individual parent for doing what's best for their child. I do think that the system further disadvantages some of the other youngest children.

Do I feel sorry for those who started school at just turned 4 and whose parents weren’t concerned about their increased likelihood of being diagnosed as SEN, higher bullying risk, higher risk of suicide, lower academic outcomes and admission to Russel group unis? Yes.

Holding back a year is an expensive choice for many families. You cannot say that anyone with a summer born child who doesn't defer doesn't care that their child is at higher risk of suicide ffs. That's grossly unfair.

Logically the maib effect classmates have on a child are
Number of children in class but more important is the number of children who have sen of all types. Or are generally behind and not meeting expectations.
At a literal level deferring takes that one child who may have ended up behind and popping them down a year where thet are less likely to struggle and take up teachers time. The curriculum remains the same. The class average results would possibly improve slightly. Even with an april born the likelihood of them being actuakky say 16m better than an august child is low as most kids are meeting expectations etc.
Mant kids are years ahead or behind.
Similarly the tallest kid in class is probably not sept born as kids on the 99th percentile are several years taller.

Ideally in sport and education kids would be able to move up or down to their current level. Kids grow on average about 6cm a year so even aoril born might be on average 3cm taller than average sept kids. And then 9cm taller than average aug.
Knowing winter born kids with sen (asd/adhd) which can make them relatively immature (2/3 their age), how much worse that is when they are already youngest.

Many other countries it is easy to move back a year. And this is better for the child and later employment as keeping up with peers then coming out with no qualifications.

Yes nursery is expensive however the same parents could have ended up with sept kids which would cost no different. Plus you still get the free hours.
In fact usual summer borns save the gov money as they dont get the nursery funding till 5 that sept kids do. Aug kids start free hours at 3 for basically 9m. (Dont know re newer funding)
For whatever reason my dc dont seem to have many aug borns in class. Dc2 has just 1. And dd1 has nil. When there 'should' be 2.5 of each month.
They are both much more weighted to boys too.

You’re right, the research shows this option is taken up proportionately more by professional/higher earners. It is of course easier to do so if one can afford childcare for another year; although arguably 30 free hours do cover you until the child turns 5 so we found that nursery cost no more than school does (given the need for wrap around care and holiday club costs on top, it worked out about the same)!

I’m not ‘being unfair’ to refer to the disadvantages for summer borns; all those risks are not a certainty, but the research has found they are significantly more likely for summer borns, especially summer born boys. It’s not unfair to state the objective position; it’s just unfair in and of itself that the system is set up in this way to start children at school far too young.

i disagree that correcting one child’s disadvantage means another child suffers. It doesn’t work like that. My child starting at a more developmentally appropriate age for them benefits my child; it does not in any way negatively impact anyone else’s child? Arguably the more mature and happy my child is, the better social skills they will have to get on well with their peers and bring the level ‘up’ not damage other children’s experience by taking up more teachers time because they can’t cope / are being disruptive,

There's always someone who is the youngest, and someone who was the oldest.
I used to play tennis and there were two boys, whose birthdays were within a week, either side of 1st January, which was the cut off for tennis.
Although the December birthday one was slightly better than the other, he was rated lower because of that and won less, and did less prestigious things.
One of those things.

@Muthaofcats - you are coming across a strange mix of smug (I’m a great parent, making choices that will protect my child against the risk of suicide and boost their chances of getting into a Russell Group Uni) and defensive (why is no one listening to me when I’m the only one who knows what’s best).

It’s quite odd.

Anyway I have 2 august born children. And because anecdotal examples of how well they’re getting on, or not, won’t tell us anything I won’t bother sharing them.

i agree with PP that 4 years (48 months) is too young really to start school - that’s a worthy campaign.

But stretching the gap between oldest to youngest in a cohort to 16 months makes age differences within that comparison group even worse. So I don’t agree with that.

I of course back the decision that I made; but that doesn’t make me smug. I don’t think I’m better than anyone else for the decision we made; I entirely appreciate what a tricky decision it is, almost didn’t do it myself, and think ultimately every child is different and only parents know what’s best for their own child. I wouldn’t judge someone who didn’t delay their summer born’s start but I do judge those who judge parents that do. I also judge people who make no effort to look into the topic before casting their own opinions about others and jumping to conclusions.

Theres a difference between seeking to correct ignorant assertions and defensiveness. I couldn’t give a monkeys whether some stranger on the internet approves of our decisions. My child’s happiness is my only concern . The only reason I’m countering these comments is for the sake of those parents worrying about their own child and the data around outcomes for summer borns and not wanting them being put off from doing what may be best for their kid because of ignorant and ill informed comments.

Urgh why not just let them go to school in the correct year group? Why the need to defer?

My dd now at uni (Russell group lol) missed the cut off by 2 hours! There has to be a cut off somewhere and yes it probably is a bit easier for those with autumn birthdays but that’s life surely. With the latest trend for deferral it makes it much worse for summer born kids in their correct school year, who could be in with children more than a year older. Not fair on them at all, people desperate to gain any advantage they can for their children and happy to trample over others in the process.

Dd would have been mortified having to do sports with a different year group and I think as they grow up there are distinct differences in maturity between the different year groups which will have consequences for those that deferred.

I don’t think it should be allowed personally.

Actually if selective private schools and grammars let in more older kids then average state school will proportionateky have more younger kids than expected. Private also often let kids drop back a year.

Going back to the original question of sport, I am not familiar with the exact rules but it is definitely possible to get an exemption in football as a deferred child was playing in my son’s team in an FA kids league last year in his adopted cohort. My son is in fact a July born playing up a year so this kid was two years older than him! It may be relevant that this child’s birthday is August so the gap is not as significant as it would be if he were a June baby.

Even if the OP’s DD would have to play out of cohort, that is such a minor thing compared to the advantages many have outlined here of deferring, if OP has decided that is the right thing for her child (it will not be the right thing for every child; we considered and decided against it for my summer born and I am confident that we made the right decision looking at him now). Unless OP has a three year old Olympian on her hands, it makes no sense for this to be such a major factor in the decision.

@Muthaofcats I agree you are coming across as smug here - your opening post said, in a pretty smug tone, that those who didn’t defer are very defensive about their choice, implying that your way is the only way and those who don’t defer have made the wrong decision and therefore have to be defensive. You’ve also implied heavily, if not openly said, that those who don’t defer don’t care that their children are at higher risk of suicide!

Most good parents weigh up all relevant factors (as others have mentioned sex, birth order, ability, personality, prematurity, month of birth - to me it makes sense to defer an August born but deferring a May born absent SEN less so) and come to a decision that they believe is best for their child. For what it’s worth, there is a deferred child in my son’s class whose parents deferred for extremely valid reasons - I would have done the same in their position - but who has turned out to be very bright and is now bored and playing up in class. He is actually taking up more of the teacher’s time than he would in the correct year group because of the need for behaviour management and constant extension work.

You made the right decision for your child and are happy with that decision - well done. Please accept that others have done the same, and explaining why they took the decision they did is no more “defensive”than you telling OP why you chose to defer.