Summerborn reception

[Userflower]

I just wanted to share some good news, my friends child started reception this week (deferred summerborn so is already age 5). There are 7 summerborn children deferred in her class. There are no children born in July or August 2021, as they’ve all deferred to start next year!
Times are changing!!

What part of thr OP is judgmental? I was merely sharing good news, this comment is totally unnecessary

It’s not about being the youngest it’s about children who’ve just turned 4 starting school

Your thread is describing how happy you are that some parents have deferred there summer born children........
You give information about how research has been done into summer born children who have gone on to have issues etc because they started school after being 4 for a few days / weeks.
This is judgmental against parents who have not deferred.
I think your post is in bad taste and is aimed at parents which you imply have not made the right decision in your opinion and the research you have found.
Its scary you don't think you come across as being judgemental.
Maybe have a reread of the thread and see how you come across......

i am happy that more parents are making informed choices about their children’s education using the data backing this decision. Your comment is wholly unnecessary

Some are totally fine doing that though, my end of August child is one of them.

It depends on the child.

Lots of people have given you different reasons why they didn't defer which are well thought out and in the interests of their individual children. Others have decided to defer by making an equally informed choice.
You seem to be very rigid in your thinking and obsessed with statistics. But kids aren't statistics!

Am I right in thinking that schools are under no obligation to accept a deferred child? If so how do you decide between what's more important? Getting a place at your preferred school or deferring your child's place?

But putting them in the year below, the kids will be over a year older than the ones whose parents want them starting at just turned 4. How would that work out??

Someone has to be the youngest.

It’s been said a few times but I’ll try to explain again.

The disadvantage does not come from being “the youngest” in the cohort, but of being young - it is an absolute not a relative concept.

As I posted up thread, if, by a fluke, there was an entire class of autumn born kids and one spring born child, nobody would suggest that the spring born child should defer because that child would still be ready for school, even if others in the class were older.

If all summer born children deferred (as would mirror the NI system, where the youngest child is born on 30 June), then that would be preferable as those 2 months do make a difference to school readiness.

If some parents of summer borns choose not to defer, then (a) it remains their choice and presumably they would take into account the fact that some do defer and as such there might be a 14 month age gap rather than 12, (b) other parents’ decisions aren’t really relevant to mine and (c) I’m not sure why it would make a big difference if there are some children who are 13 or 14 months older as opposed to the 12 months older that there would be already.

In most cases the deferred children are only a matter of days older than the oldest in the “right” cohort.

There’s so much hand wringing about this in England because it’s still fairly unusual but in Scotland and Ireland this is the norm.

If it's not about being the youngest but about school readiness at just turned 4 then why can't the provision just be adapted to suit the youngest children?
Teachers are always expected to meet the needs of lots of different kids at once whether it's SEN, EAL etc.

But if all summer children defer then we may as well just push the can down the road even further.

Sorry, you obviously didn’t comprehend what I meant. What I meant was of course schools; starting from reception and continuing until they are 7 years old when their age and ability co-aligns; make necessary adjustments according to the age of the children. It’s frustrating when people here are implying we don’t know what’s best for the child. If you can persuade me otherwise then please do, but 30 years of experience makes me confident in EYFS and KS1 teachers, thank you.

From that point, and the studies you mentioned around deferred summer borns doing better - is it the fact that they deferred a year or the fact that they have university educated parents that impacts them doing better in secondary school?

This is a completely illogical idea though. If one cohort is a few months younger than another than surely the class teacher just adapts their practice to this? EYFS is mainly play based anyway and most 3 year olds go to a preschool. Why would they be unable to cater for a just turned 4?

You are saying that about 20% of kids should defer as Spring birthdays are ok but not Summer ones which I don't know about!
I know that there is a difference between a September birthday child and an August one but I don't think there is such a difference between a June born child and an August one.

I actually do think for lots of parents it's about giving their child a leg up by making them the oldest in the class. Which is their choice but it doesn't mean it's wildly irresponsible to not defer. Maybe if every child who was born after June deferred but that's hardly the case!

This will mean you child does GCSE a year later. Then when they start college/sixth form they will only be entitled to 2 years, in the correct year they are entitled to 3 in case they need an extra year. This will not be the case for deferred children. You kids will also have to play on the older teams in sports clubs.

There is nothing illogical about what I have said. You may disagree but that doesn’t make it illogical.

To be clear, I believe that the current school starting age is too young, and that all summer born children would benefit from deferring/the dates being changed.

To your point about a class teacher adapting to cohort, that’s irrelevant. Summer born children are only just 5 when they have to move out of EYFS. They have a whole year less of play-based education than September borns, however good (or bad) their reception teacher is.

I haven’t said at any point that it is “wildly irresponsible” not to defer - you’re obviously projecting as some kind of perceived criticism on your own choices.

I don't think there is anything wrong with my choices. I chose a school that has lots of play based provision and flexibility throughout Key Stage One as opposed to making my child repeat preschool. There can and should be play based provision after reception. I taught KS1 for a decade so I know a bit about it.

Looking ahead to secondary (I teach secondary)...

Why would you want your child to be so much older than many others in the class, and therefore more advanced than everyone else?

That's not an advantage. That's like insisting on putting them in the bottom set for everything.

They won't feel excited and challenged by school, just bored and frustrated.

I have never met a parent who has wanted their child to be in a bottom set if they're capable of being in a top set.

When teens are academically unchallenged, it affects their well-being. They lash out and can even start to bully. This is even more risky if you have a 15yo boy among 13-14yos, as he'll be bigger than the others. A larger, older, cleverer, post-puberty boy, languishing with academic frustration and boredom among younger, pre-puberty boys?

I don't buy it

That doesn't stack for August/July borns though... they could be days older than the "correct" age pupils.
(I agree for April/May... but this is my personal opinion as I don't think 12yos belong in Primary schools and 19yos in Secondary schools)

Yeah, I don’t care about your choices and I’m not commenting on them one way or another. It’s great that you’re happy with them.

But I would say that (a) however “play based” a school is, they still must follow the national curriculum and summer born children will have a year less to play than autumn born peers and (b) the notion of “repeating” preschool is totally misconceived - you may as well say that a 3 year old “repeats” being a toddler.

Preschool is for kids to have fun and learn through play, mostly self-directed and they do not get bored there. Whilst there are learning objectives there is no syllabus so it’s not like a child repeating year 2 and having to learn about the great fire of London twice.

For reference, I have a very bright autumn born girl who can read and write and has just had the best year at nursery playing with her friends, so I’m looking at it from that perspective.

RE Preschool... going forward this issue might resolve as the funding is now from 9mo. But I did think one of the biggest disadvantages the summerborns had was not just their age, but the fact they got three terms of Preschool, compared with the 5 terms the older children got. I know my March baby really benefited fir the that summer term with the children from the year group above. It just seemed backwards that the children who needed the most support get the least funding at preschool level.

When I was a teen I had a friend who was April born 18yo in year 12 - not deferred, had to do a year again for other reasons - and his classmates treated him like a king. He bought alcohol for everyone and was extremely popular for all the wrong reasons.

I don't want that for my son, thanks

What makes you think deferred children are "So much older" than many others in the class?

My deferred son is the oldest in the class by 5 days.

5 days!!!

Within the following 10 weeks of my son's 5th birthday there are another 7 children who turn 5.

It baffles me that there is this concept that deferred children are "so much older" than everyone else, when to be honest there are probably a lot of children within the class who turn the same age within the next 6 months (if not a smaller time period).

I suppose thats the flipside to parents who worry thier children will be so much younger than their classmates so they defer them, when (before deferring became common) the August child would have been one of many summer borns. My son was one of 5 August birthdays on his class.

I appreciate that doesnt impact on the absolute measure of being developmentally ready for school. But I do hear many parents, when worrying about thier 4 year old comparing to the 5 year olds and saying they will be a whole year younger, forgetting there is a spread of ages.

I think it often depends on the provision your child is in before (I've gone into mine further up thread can't be bothered to repeat!) and whether you think it's in their best interests to continue in it for an extra year vs go into reception with their peers. So for some people defering is in the best interests of individual kids. For others it isn't.

I don't think the onus or expectation should be on parents to defer though as schools should be catering for the cohort they get (and every year group will have a huge range of abilities and needs that aren't always linked to age).

If they wanted to decide actually the cut off is 4 and a half then that would maybe be better but I expect preschools and receptions would be then adapting their provision for having slightly older children anyway.