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 think it entirely depends on the cohort. If your August born daughter joins the year below and they are mostly autumn borns then fair enough. But if they’re a very spread out year with birthdays in every month and so is the year above then your daughter is no closer to the cohort below than she is her actual cohort.

I have a very late August boy, now in late teens, I have many years to wonder if I should have fought for deferral especially now he has had some MH issues and turns out to be autistic. (He says he wouldn't have wanted it).

I really believe that it "solves" one problem by creating another and making the age gap in a class even wider. That deferred child is very likely to grow up/catch up and then be wondering why they are stuck in a lower class than peers. As well as the disadvantage to the remaining youngest.

It's for teachers to differentiate and make allowances in their classes, maybe there should be adjustments to SATs and sports so the youngest aren't made to struggle. Deferring (except for SEN/very premature) just messes up those efforts.

OP you have a daughter she will most likely be fine. Being summer born alone isn't a reason defer. There's a cut off, someone has to be youngest. You need to make sure the teachers adjust work so it's accessible to all the children in the class group.

“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.” @Muthaofcats

On the contrary, this has been explained to you repeatedly on the thread. You believe that your child would be disadvantaged by being at most almost 12 months younger than the oldest child in their class, because of the age gap (you’ve explained several times the disadvantages that flow from this, including an intelligent child thinking they are stupid because others are far ahead due simply to their age). You do not seem to accept that a deferred summer born increases the age gap between oldest and youngest in the deferred child’s adopted cohort, thereby increasing the age gap disadvantage for the youngest child in that class.

You also (as is often the case in this summer born debate) appear to suggest that most of the other children in the class will have autumn birthdays, meaning the summer born child is significantly younger than all of them. Generally, that is not the case - there will be a spread of birthdays across the year, so the summer born will only be one, two or three months younger than some of the class. In my DC1’s class, for example, there are no September birthdays at all. My DC2’s class has two September birthdays out of 30 kids.

September babies are 11 months older than August babies. June babies who have deferred a year are 12 months or older than the summer babies in the correct year group. I don't think parents should be able to defer a year unless their child has complex special needs and developmental delays. Instead of comparing July/August to the autumn born children, look at the spring born children who aren't much older.

But You wouldn’t mind a September 1st child being in the same class as one born on 31st August a year later?

This is exactly the system, yes. Each school year has exactly 12 months of birth dates. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. You can't 'identify' your child to a different age group to cheat the system.

Well, if you're going to be precious and defer your child (SEN excepted, of course) you're going to have to suck up the fact that there may be some unwelcome consequences.

Assuming uniform distribution of birthdays and that all children join their normal year, the average birthday of a child in a year group will be 1st March. In the most extreme case, a child born on 1st April, the oldest eligible to be classified as "summer born", would be 1 month younger than the class average if they joined their normal year. They would be 11 months older than the class average if they deferred a year. Even a child born on 31st August would be a day further away from the class average if they deferred a year. But I suspect you're fine with that as long as your child is on the "right" side of that inequality.

Absolute rubbish.

My son is in year 4 and could have been in year 5. He has represented his year (year4) in loads of differents sports for his school. There has never been a question about which year he should play for. School sports are done by the year group. Outside sports team she will play for her age.

If you haven't already the join "flexible school admission for summer horns" on Facebook. Best place to ask advice as on here you get lots of misinformation from people who don't actually known.

He shouldn't be. I'm a sports teacher.

I think a lot of people are missing the point on deferring.

It's not a comparison to the other children in the class, it's the expectations and learning expected of the individual child. We are one of the few countries that start formal education at age 4. Reception is one thing but the jump to year 1 is huge. My current year 2s are struggling a lot with social skills and paying attention for extended amounts of time. I really think if they had had longer to play and have continuous provision/independent learning in a relaxed atmosphere for an extra year or two, they would become more engaged learners.

He's been to two different primary schools and has played for his year in both. I also work in a primary school. He absolutely should be able to play for his year.

Outside of school he plays for the year above for football. I could ask for the FA to put him in the age below because he's a summerborn but he's physically very strong so there is no need.

She'd play with her biological age group, i.e. the year above.

You should probably ask the PE teacher there to check up on the rules @Attheendoftheday86
If it's a friendly, at the very least they should be making the other school aware that they have a Year 5 age group child playing.
If it's anything like a 'proper' national schools type competition, he should absolutely not be playing. It is cheating.

The schools should definitely let other teams know they have a year 5 aged child playing with the year 4 teams. Yes he’s possibly only a few weeks older than some but is also over 12 months older than others. Coupled with the fact he’s physically very strong, its quite an advantage to have so id be very surprised if he was allowed to play in national competitive school team sports for the younger year.

You really are missing the point. Children aren’t compared to each other or competing with each other in this way; the curriculum is based on an expected standard they need to meet. Why put your child under unnecessary stress and upset forcing them to do so with a year less opportunity before school?

The policy doesn’t exist to give children an unfair advantage, it just corrects a disadvantage for them individually. It categorically has no impact on anyone else; in fact evidence would suggest it’s to the contrary, it can only benefit the rest of the class and the teacher generally.

@Muthaofcats

You really are missing the point.

You're the one who asserted that summer borns are "closer" to the deferred cohort than the normal cohort. I'm merely pointing out that you made a false claim.

I understand your point perfectly well. You would prefer that the system is changed so that all children begin formal school at a later age, or whenever they are more ready to learn in a classroom situation. Others are making a different point: that, within the system as it exists, the youngest in a classroom are disadvantaged and summer borns who defer are merely shifting the disadvantage onto others.

You are missing the point. You can’t be closer to the cohort below than the cohort you’re in assuming birthdays are spread out which they usually are.

it doesn’t benefit teachers to have an age range of 16 months in a class as opposed to 12. I can’t understand why you think it would. Many schools have 2 year groups in a class so you then have potential age gaps of 28 months. That’s huge. In lessons like PE or things like sports day of course that’s going to be an enormous advantage for the child who is over 12 months older than the other children.

of course people are going to seize the opportunity to give their child the advantage of being the oldest in the class as opposed the youngest if they can but don’t pretend it’s benefiting the teacher and other pupils as well as your child.

I see that you aren’t understanding.

if a child is born in August 31st and school starts the next day, of course they’re closer to that year group? Bonkers that you’re trying to suggest otherwise. Also your weird law of averages doesn’t work if you actually look at the spread of birth months over a typical year, but it’s a pointless argument anyway.

Is the argument for delaying start less applicable for an April born? Maybe but I’d trust the parents of that child with the decision that best meets their child’s needs, not some competitive illogical internet opinion.

You appear to be committed to the view that one child being in the more appropriate year group for them somehow affects others negatively; it appears no logic or evidence will sway that opinion so no point going over and over it.

my child’s teachers and head (as well as all the local schools) all said how much it benefits them and the school to have summer borns start at 5 as they are easier to teach and manage socially and emotionally.

the number starting school now still not potty trained is causing huge issues for primary schools.

if a child is born in August 31st and school starts the next day, of course they’re closer to that year group?

Do you agree with my math for the April born? That the child will be "closer" to their normal cohort than their deferred cohort? If so, at what point between 1st April birthdays and 31st August birthdays do you think the conclusion changes, and why?

Bonkers that you’re trying to suggest otherwise.

I've noticed that the posters with the weakest arguments are the most likely to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than refuting other people's points.

but it’s a pointless argument anyway

Then stop pushing a false statement. Or explain why my argument is incorrect.

You appear to be committed to the view that one child being in the more appropriate year group for them somehow affects others negatively

I actually believe that a system which groups children by... preparedness and achievement would be better than grouping children by age. However, in the system we have now, as others have pointed out, it usually increases the spread of preparedness and achievement in classrooms.

I can understand why it might be helpful in reception. Not so much in key stage 2.

you are not closer to the cohort below if you are born 31st August. You are in the 1st sept- 31st August cohort. The cohort below begins a day after your birthday so you are not in it so can’t possibly be closer to it.

do you mean you are closer to the September after your birthday then the September before? Because that would make sense but just isn’t what cohort means

If you look at the data for those who apply for CSA start, it’s a tiny proportion that do for April borns. The majority will be August borns, and you can entirely understand why it becomes increasingly more attractive the younger in a year the child would be.

But who are you to look behind the summer born guidelines, based on a body of research, which has found that children from April-August are at a disadvantage that they carry with them academically, socially and emotionally throughout their education. What business of yours is it to undermine the small proportion that feel their April born child is going to suffer if they start school before they are required to? Why does what one family decides is best for their child threaten you?

My point is that no one has been able to back up the assertion that it negatively impacts others to have an August born who is merely days older than the oldest join their class.

Using a Latin phrase does not bolster your apparent authority on the matter. I would much prefer good old research to back up your claims.

The research shows that the disadvantage remains with children throughout their school career; they do not ‘soon catch up’ like people often claim.

If you are born in August, you don’t even have your birthday during the school year. You are starting school days after turning 4. This is not in a child’s best interests. The summer born policy exists for this reason. Parents making the decision to day their child’s start because they think just turned 4 is too young, are not doing so in some synical attempt to get ahead or trample on others. It’s such a flawed and nasty way to come at this issue, I’m quite staggered by it tbh.

i can understand not feeling it is necessary; if id had my winter born child first i dont think id have understood either. If your child seems ready you cant possibly appreciate the anxiety when it’s clear they are going to suffer. So I can understand not understanding; but to judge and assert that parents are being unjust or competitive is what I find surprising.

You still haven't countered my criticism of your assertion that summer borns are "closer" to the next cohort than to their normal cohort. And I don't consider "you're bonkers" to be a valid argument.