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?

You ask why not just send a child who was 3 a matter of days ago to school too early?

why not read some of the research around it if you’re genuinely interested in why a parent might wish to do so?
https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2021/f-June-21/Summer-born-children-unfairly-labelled-as-having-special-educational-needs

https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/born_matters_summary.pdf

I ask again why that decision has any impact on any other child? And suggest again that an unhappy / un developed child who is ‘behind’ is far more likely to negatively impact their peers because they’ll take more of the teachers time.

This argument that it is somehow ‘trampling on others’ is illogical and reflects a competitiveness and meanness that is pretty unpleasant. Why wouldn’t you want to see children thriving and making the most of policies that exist to correct an imbalance if their parents felt it in a child’s best interests? My child being happier has no impact on yours (other than positive surely).

It also assumes that out of cohort children are ‘top of the class’ and that’s certainly not our experience. Children have a range of strengths and weaknesses. But this isn’t really the point.

Summer borns are often closer in age to the adopted cohort than the original one, so it of course makes more sense to go for that and allow them the chance to experience the full early years exposure in terms of development that they’d otherwise be forced to miss.

Agree with others. You can't have it both ways OP. You feel she will be disadvantaged by being the youngest in her age expected school year but you seem happy to try to engineer an unfair advantage over most of the children in the year below.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2009/feb/14/starting-age-four-school

Do have a proper review of all the research around this tic and the reasons for school starting age being moved to 4 from 5 in recent years if anyone is really interested in the topic.

They are helping to create that disparity in the year below.

I just warned OP that mumsnet threads on this topic always get a wave of uninformed knee jerk emotional posts that aren’t as helpful as a review of the research and a consideration of their own child’s best interests. I do assume that some of these opinions come from anxiety around their own child, maybe that’s smug? It actually comes from an understanding for them as I get having a summer born can make it a hard decision and obv stressful reading data around suicide risk and mental health and wondering what’s best and whether they’ve made the right call, whatever you do!

The anecdote you give isn’t helpful, you have no idea what’s going on for that child or whether their ‘behavioural issues’ are due to ‘boredom’ . I highly suspect that child’s parent was aware their kid had different needs and it informed their decision at the time. If he’s struggling emotionally then even better he’s given the space to develop that his autumn born contemporaries were granted by default . If a child is bored at school that suggests an issue with the teaching.

How so?

Actually, I know the child very well and it is his own parents who have said he is bored and playing up. He absolutely does not have different needs. I have spent time in the classroom and the teacher is good at differentiation - the point is that this is harder with an age range of 15 months than an age range of 12 months and that affects all the children in the class.

I was merely pointing out that your assertion that deferring a child doesn’t disadvantage the others in the class “below” because the deferred child is taking up less of the teacher’s time is incorrect. A deferred child who is working at the right level for their age expands the range of the class and makes it harder to ensure each child is reaching their potential. There is no altruism in the decision to defer your child - you’re doing it expressly to give your own child an advantage, and that’s fine - everyone wants the best for their child - but just own it and don’t pretend you’re doing the rest of the class a favour.

Fundamentally disagree with you. Of course the decision is primarily focused on one’s own child’s best interests and correcting a disadvantage , but the research categorically does not show that it has a negative impact on others. There is plenty of data however around the impact of happy, successful people on others. This is the case in education but also the workplace and beyond. But don’t take my word for it, or anyone else’s, look into it yourself if you’re interested in a balanced non subjective view.

Your anecdote also doesn’t reflect most parents reported experience of their child starting at 5. I’ve never spoken to a single person in the summer borns communities that has reported they regret it or that their child is ‘bored’. I have however seen time and again how unfair it is for summer borns who are struggling and told they have special needs (taking away resource from those who actually do) or parents aren’t trying hard enough with them at home.

Given this issue seems not to exist in countries that start kids much older, the solution would arguably to look at that, but as these decisions are always driven by economics and not children’s welfare, I highly doubt it. Which is why parents are then forced to make their own view and utilise the summer born policy, developed and implemented because the impact is so significant.

That's a bit odd - smaller and weaker - I think that's more due to genetics. My late August kids were always on the back row in school photos

They have gone from youngest to oldest in the year and increased the age difference between youngest and oldest. It's an engineered advantage. There has to be a cut off so parents should accept it.

It's not correcting a disadvantage - it's pushing that 'disadvantage' (or simple fact, as I see it) down the line and onto somebody else's child.

I don't agree with deferring not that OP is asking for an opinion on that! I had 2 late Augusts and a September.. have to say I campaigned massively to remove the Easter intake which I felt really put children at a disadvantage especially when Easter was late and they only had a matter of weeks in Reception and then expected to perform in Y2 SATS at the same level as those who had had 2 full terms longer and the teacher was more familiar with the Autumn borns. I remember in the 90s my son's class having 39 kids and over 10 were July/August birthdays I think it was harder for the teacher. Early Years Foundation was meant to even this all out a bit cos at 4 the child isn't actually entering a new wholly academic class.

OPs choice obviously. But on the other hand I have felt that the September borns can get bored of school and peak before their time! At least when you are younger in the year you still feel you should be there.

If you defer just suck up the sports part it's not really fair to expect otherwise. I remember other girls saying I was too tall to play netball in primary and teachers would make me sit out to let the smaller kids play.
But kids are taller these days as an adult I'm only average height

Well everyone likes to think they have made the right decision so no-one in the summer born group you mention will want to admit their child is bored! There must be some bias there because many parents of Sept/Oct born children will happily say their child is bored and wishes lessons could go faster, especially in KS1 when there can be a huge disparity in ability within a class.

To balance my original anecdote, I will share another related to my DC1’s class. He has a classmate with autism who has a May birthday and deferred, and it is clear that was the correct decision for that child and he “fits” better in his adopted cohort than he would have done in his original one. The point is that most of us on this thread can see that the decision to defer or not depends on the individual child and is one most parents make having considered all relevant factors and taken advice e.g. from their child’s nursery teachers. We can appreciate that deferring is absolutely the right thing for some children but is not for others. You appear to be the only person dogmatically banging the drum of “everyone should defer and those who do not don’t care if their kids fail academically and kill themselves”.

Hang on, how can you disagree with something @metellaestinatrio had seen first hand? You’re either dismissing her experience or implying she’s lying. Just because your research is saying there are apparently no negatives of deferring doesn’t mean this posters friends son isn’t experiencing negative aspects.
I actually laughed out loud when I saw your post last night saying you don’t judge people who don’t defer. At 20.46 on Wednesday you posted ‘if you could protect your child from some pretty scary stats around summer borns why wouldn’t you?’ At 20.49 the same day you stated ‘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.’ Pretty judgy statements to make IMO.

I see we have a different relationship with ‘simple facts’ :)

Oh stop it @Muthaofcats

You know full well it's an elbows out parenting tactic to give their own child an advantage by pushing others down.

Stop trying to pretend it isn't.

There's a reason 'mumsnet' has a different opinion to yours. Because 'mumsnet' is a complete mix of millions of women from differing demographics, many who have no skin in this game, who can objectively view deferring as simply exacerbating a problem and pushing it on to someone else.

I'm sure if you surround yourself on other sites with parents who've done similar, you will of course find yourself in an echo chamber of parents pretending it doesn't harm the children who don't have parental support to defer even more.

‘Elbows out parenting tactics’ sound like an extremely stressful and negative way to come at parenting, and life generally. I’m sorry that’s how you see things.

Not really. Simple fact is that my youngest would be eligible for deferral were she coming up to primary admission now, whereas her sister wouldn't.

Simple fact was that DD2 was noticeably smaller than the September children (and everybody else born up to August 18th when the actual smallest and youngest child was born, tbh) in her cohort. DD1 wasn't.

Simple fact is that DD2, had she been deferred, would then have been one of the oldest and largest children in her new cohort.

Simple fact is that if there are disadvantages from being the youngest/smallest in the year (the fact she was later diagnosed with AuDHD is neither here nor there, hers - like her November born sister's ADD - was there from infancy), by seeking to defer, that means a parent is intentionally shifting those disadvantages onto somebody else's child.

That's not eliminating inequality or unfairness, that's just making sure that it's somebody else's problem.

@Muthaofcats

How can you simultaneously state

'Being the youngest is proven to be a disadvantage' and link after link to research that proves this.

And

'By deferring my child I am not causing any other child to be disadvantaged'

When that is literally precisely what you are doing? Transferring your child being the youngest on to another child. And making it worse by increasing the age difference from 12 months to 16 months.

We now have Child A -born June 2020 to parents who have the time to support, in the same class as Child B - born august 2021 to parents who don't have the time to support. Marvellous for Child A, well done, worse for Child B.

Child B of course could then be deferred and so it goes. Which means there is no line drawn it's more of a big wiggle.

Parents could choose to keep them at home until they fell ready for them to join their cohort!

The point is that many Child Bs parents can't defer. They don't have the finances or logistics for another year at home; they don't know about it, can't fill in the forms etc etc

It was wrong to create a system which allowed some children only to gain an advantage by switching places with another child.

The argument that 4.0 is too young is valid. That could be addressed by taking a June- May cohort to start in September.

The deferral system doesn't address anything other than give proactive parents a chance for their child to switch places with another.

Starting school at only just turned 4 is the issue. If you are worried about your own child being too young, you also can apply to delay their start. What other children are doing has no bearing on what your child does. It’s not a competition. It’s sad you see children as pitched against each other. There is nothing to show summer borns starting at 5 negatively impacts their new cohort.

Your logic is flawed and views it like kids are all competing with each other which is a horrid way to see things and going to set your child up for huge anxiety.

Yes it definitely relies on parents being proactive and is unfair for those kids whose parents weren’t aware or couldn’t make it work for other reasons when they might otherwise have benefited. Definitely aware that more privileged kids seem to be those whose parents are aware of the option / know how to navigate the system to help correct the disadvantage. There are lots of ways inequality screws over children. Doesn’t mean that policies shouldn’t be in place to try to help those who might need it.

and going to set your child up for huge anxiety.

I don't have any skin in this game @Muthaofcats

My children are December born teenagers.

That is why I am able to discuss this objectively and unemotionally considering the needs of all children, not just my own.

Would it not be better to campaign for the cut off date to move to February/March, but no deferrals?

Then you'd have a maximum of 12 month age gap, but everybody would be at least four and a half when they started.

It would make childcare more expensive, but if it improved outcomes for everybody it could be worth consideration.

(The only people I know out of year were put up a year, so different set of factors entirely involved. They'd play with their class, so up a year, for sports, but at e.g. Brownies would start and move up with the year below based on their birthdays.)