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?

I was agreeing with you. I don't believe that the deferral does the child any good anyway.

I think the line has to be drawn and I have seen problems with September kids being too old and the extra 12 months of childcare to pay.

Perhaps having winter borns makes it harder for you to understand how tricky it is for parents of summer borns; having also got autumn / winter born kids it’s a completely different experience for them and I can understand why parents who don’t have summer borns just simply can’t understand how significant the disadvantage can feel.

Btw not having ‘skin in the game’ doesn’t make you more objective or better researched, arguably you are less so because you haven’t needed to look into this ?

It used to be that they staggered starts but they scrapped it when the schools realised they could go after the early years funding if they built new receptions for 4 year olds. If we were following an evidence based approach, kids wouldn’t start school until 6/7 as the countries that do this tend not to experience the same issue with summer borns as others. There is something about starting too early that seems to be the issue, and sadly can follow kids throughout their school career, such that they never ‘catch up’ as people assume they might.

In my experience the staggered starts were disastrous for Summer born kids and more advantageous for Autumn borns establishing themselves as leaders in their relationship with the teacher and having time in a smaller class. The youngest joining the class at full capacity for a few weeks then bingo all expected to be at the same level.

well said @metellaestinatrio

Well I have 3dc, all born at different times of the year. All now adults so can see the wider picture and am also an experienced teacher, who spent the latter years working in this area.

I can think of two children in all that time that I genuinely thought it was right that they were able to go through schooling with children from the year below. One had Downs Syndrome and the associated developmental and intellectual delay associated with his condition, as well as having heart condition that meant he'd misses a lot of Nursery through being in hospital and recuperating. The other was a little girl born right at the end of August, but born 11 weeks early. Again, she had developmental delay and again, had missed a lot of normal experiences that U4s get, through hospital stays. She also had some hearing loss so was picking up language a lot later than her peers.
Both of those children, IME benefitted from being able to move through school with children from the school year below. Only children with similar exceptional circumstances should be able to be kept back a year, IMO. Not the middles class parents trying to gain an advantage for their dc, to the detriment of others.

I have two august born children and I agree with every post of @arethereanyleftatall ‘s that I’ve seen.

You are consistently skimming over the point everyone has made that widening the age gap to 16 months can only make the discrepancy for the youngest children worse. But the youngest child won’t be yours any more, instead they’ll be the oldest in the year above below (edited).

Agree with this. There’s a case in exceptional circumstances. But that should be all.

Also a case for a later starting age for everyone to avoid children starting school shortly after turning 4. Which I do think is too young.

Yes that makes sense and why I’ve always thought that requesting to start a summer born later in the year or straight into y1 not in their best interests either. I guess the best thing would be a later start for all, and failing that, giving summer borns the option to join the year they’re closer to (ie the next one) if parents feel that is better for them.

Sorry not sure what your anecdotal evidence adds? Glad my kids aren’t being taught by you :) you seem pretty ignorant to the area given your apparent specialism in the subject.

Nobody has been able to explain why they believe that other children would be disadvantaged by a summer born starting in the year closer to their birthday.

Why does my child starting in the year more appropriate for them having any impact on yours whatsoever ?

I’m perhaps very naive but I didn’t realise parents would be so competitive or jealous about other kids. Surely we all want the best for our children but also want to know the rest of the kids in their class and school are also happy and secure. In my view my kids do better if other kids are in a good position too. I don’t want to see others suffer if they don’t have to.

Youre also making huge assumptions that these children are top of the class, in my experience children are so different that it’s not like the CSA starters are ‘top of the class’. My child certainly isn’t, in fact I’d say he was behind in some areas and doing well in others. If he was in the year above he’d be actively in difficulty with some subjects and the impact on his mental health would be awful. I’d take some shitty comments and opinions over that any day…

@Muthaofcats your individual decision to delay your child will not negatively impact others; as you say, your individual decision may benefit others as your individual child will be happier/more able to cope than they otherwise would have been, and that will make the classroom a better place to be.

However, the system that allows you to make that choice individually, can and likely will disadvantage others. You accept that summer borns are at a disadvantage if they are not deferred. The current system means that some summer borns will be deffered while others won't be. So those that are not delayed will now be starting school in a classroom when they've just turned four and will be in a class with some children who are up to 15 months older than them. They will see those children doing better than them, and being picked for sports teams more often than them, etc etc All the disadvantages of being summer born and starting school age 4 has been made worse.

Now that isn't your fault. And I will be delaying my late August born son because this is the system we have. If he had been born in September, I certainly wouldn't be pushing him to go a year early. A parent of a September born child is "taking advantage" of the system just at much as a parent of a summer born who defers.

But I would certainly prefer a better system - like the one suggested above, where all children start at 4.5 or 5 - and any deferrals are then based on developmental need with the option of deferring being well known and straightforward, with no cost disadvantage - so it is open to all children who need it, not just those with educated/well-off parents.

I think what I have learnt from this thread is that the current system is not fit for purpose and that changes need to be made to ensure that some summer born children are not adversely affected compared to their peers with more pushy parents.

Perhaps the starting age should be raised for all, if there is a proven disadvantage, or deferring should only be allowed in extreme circumstances as mentioned in previous comments.

Or school should be more nursery like, with mainly playing for the first couple of years.

What it also proves is how selfish so many are nowadays, happy to trample over anyone to gain advantages for their own children seemingly without any acknowledgement or realisation (or care?) on what that means for the rest of the cohort. Utterly depressing actually.

It's a choice you have to make. If you don't defer your child will be able to play in the right year

Someone will always be youngest whatever they do.
Parents should postpone sex and baby creating till after Christmas to get them out of the August zone.

I have Summer born child and could have deferred. Chose not to as thought they'd get more stick being "older" than their year with people asking why they were kept back a year.

I agree with this

I have a September born, an August born and I am a primary school teacher

by the time children are in the juniors, the children needing extra support are often the ones without the support at home irrespective of their birth month

Great post. Completely agree these are the sort of children that should be able to defer.

Nobody has been able to explain why they believe that other children would be disadvantaged by a summer born starting in the year closer to their birthday.

Everyone has explained it to you repeatedly @Muthaofcats . What you mean is you can't/don't want to understand it. Maybe read the thread and the responses again.

And. Your use of the word 'closer' is bizarre. It works on the assumption that every other child in the class is born on 1st September. Which of course they're not. Deferring is the exact opposite of making the birthdays closer. It makes the oldest to the youngest further apart.

In Scotland, it is theoretically possible to have an 18 month range as children born between September and December can apply to defer, and children born in January and February have an automatic right. (Cut off is 1 March, they are due tonstart between 4.5 and 5.5yo). So the youngest can be 4.5, and the oldest just turning 6.

Absolutely agree with you

Sorry you haven’t pointed to any evidence to back up your assertions, so no I don’t understand it you’re right.

If my child is a day closer to the new term starting in September then they are closer in age to that cohort than the other? Weird you don’t get that.

You need evidence to understand that 16 months is a larger disparity than 12 months?
I honestly don't know how to help you @Muthaofcats, sorry.

Whilst they can benefit in school by deferring, and do PE with their class as the oldest in that class, national sporting age groups cannot change.

if it helps tennis is not done by school year but by calendar year. So if your child is an August born 2020 child they would only compete with children born 1st Jan 2020 to 31st December 2020. Younger children can play up a tennis year if talented but no older child can play down an age group. So 2021 could also play against your child but no 2019 can say my date of birth is a disadvantage and I am going to play against younger children,

I'm in Scotland so the cutoff is 1st March. You used to be able to defer January and February babies, now you can defer all winter babies. So children starting P1 (reception) are between 4.5- almost 6.

When ny daughter started school (late Nov birthday) she was one of the youngest in the class and also one of the smaller kids. While I thought actually all the 4 year olds shouldn't be starting school, I didn't think my daughter was particularly unique in this for any reason so sent her along with her peers. It was all fine for primary school but now she's in high school it has proven slightly trickier for this first year. As we have a very mixed catchment, there's a stark divide between the sorts of families who defer and those who don't and that has brought up a lot of different issues.

Deferrals are more and more common and the stretch is longer and longer - and it still is really only relevant for those families with the resources to support this. So the already disadvantaged just fall behind more and more. My son is soon going to birthday parties for both 8 and 9 year olds in his class at the same time - and his year is just before the extended deferral option so this will only happen more. The sports clubs go by year group for school settings but not for the community clubs.

I think if 'society' agrees that 4 is too young for school it should just be for everyone (of course with exceptions for SEN, etc etc). Having a fuzzy, unclear system of start dates that works one way for well educated, financially secure families and another way for the rest is just putting the wrong children on the back foot from the start.