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!!

Remove the words "so much" then, my points still stand.

I'd rather my child was stretched and challenged than coasting and bored.

I have a late-august born daughter in y1 and she's thriving, she's at least middle of the class in reading (green book band) and even more confident with numeracy. She is one of the most enthusiastic in sports too. She'd have been bored and frustrated if she just started reception now. And I'm glad she's not September born either as she'd have had no choice but to be bored.

What I'm arguing against is blanket deferment of all summer children. If one's child has some developmental delay, or was born very premature etc, of course it might make sense to defer, because they'll be on a par ability-wise with younger children. But otherwise what op is advocating for, is putting one's child in a class with children who are all younger, even though there's no indication of developmental delay.

Being effortlessly the best in the class, unchallenged and coasting, is not what I want for my daughter. I want her to be able to learn from her peers and have stimulating conversation with them. I want her to feel spurred on by a bit of healthy competitiveness, particularly in sports. It's no fun if you're bigger than everyone and it's too easy to get the ball off them.

And at the time I made my choice my train of thought was that I would rather my child be happy, enjoy school and thrive, rather than risk him struggle and fall behind and have his confidence and self belief potentially be affected for the duration of his education. I read the research and went off that, alongside taking into account my husband's experiences (a teacher) as well as that of my son's childcare provider.

My son may have been fine if I'd sent him to school when he was just turned 4, or he may not have been. I had absolutely no idea at the time as crystal balls don't exist so all I had to go with was my gut instinct and the information I was presented with. Just like I didn't have a crystal ball then, I don't have the ability to know for sure whether I made the correct decision or not, none of us do. We just do what feels right at the time.

And going back other points you made in your post...

Do you think all the Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec babies are bored and coasting too?
Or is it only deferred August borns that feel that way when they're in school?

And in relation to those comments you made, I think they are potentially very offensive and hurtful. you say the eldest in the class are "effortlessly the best in the class, unchallenged and coasting," - but what about those who aren't? How do you think parents of the older children in the year who are struggling may feel when they read your comments?

When it comes to deferral, all any parent does with their summer--born is make the choice that they feel is the best for for their child - it really isn't some big conspiracy.

You made the choice that you thought was best for your child and I made the one that I thought was best for my child.......as does every other single parent of a summer born child.

I don't have any opinion on the decision a parent makes about their summer-born child, so why do you feel so much anger towards the parents who do decide to defer their child? I just don't get it.

Spot on! I think parents who don’t defer have a real chip on their shoulder about parents who do defer. They can’t help but think ‘what if….’

In relation to this, why survive when you can thrive!

We didn’t defer our July born DT’s as it wouldn’t have been in their best interests.

Are September / October /November born kids statistically always the top of the class? Even if they are they should be challenged and not coasting.

that makes my June born, not deferred son a real anomaly!

I know i am not the person you are speaking to,and I most definitely dont feel anger towards people who chose to defer, but I can see that chosing to defer has an impact on those chosing not to defer, more than those who chose not to defer has on those deferring.

I havent criticised you. I'm disagreeing op's point of view, and then defending my view when you picked on it.

I have no anger, and I hope you don't either

My OP was sharing news that I deemed to be good - I didn’t ask for your opinion thanks so you have nothing to defend

why survive when you can thrive!

My argument is that coasting and thriving are not the same. My view is that being stretched and challenged is more conducive, long term, to learning the skills and habits needed to thrive in the world, than coasting is.

It's OK that we disagree. You can defer your child and I choose not to defer mine. It widens the age gap between the eldest and the youngest, but (if that ever applied in dd's class) I know my dd would still be undaunted because I've equipped her with the mindset that challenge is opportunity.

In the first month of reception she was easily the worst in the class at phonics, didn't even know all the letters. But now she's at least in the middle of the class. The grit and determination she's developed in just one year is the best possible thing she could learn at school, in my view. I wouldn't trade that for effortlessly coasting

I've been accused of having a chip on my shoulder, or being angry, but I do think that might be projection. I'm very pleased with the decision we made, and I think it would have been detrimental to dd to defer her, hence my argument against blanket deferment in the absence of developmental delay.

And as a teacher (in a boys' secondary), it is rarely beneficial for a boy to be the biggest, cleverest and most bored in the class. Unless it's handled well, bored and clever teenage boys can, and do, go off the rails, sometimes with permanent consequences.

My son is a winter birthday anyway, but I absolutely wouldn't want that for him. I've seen too many bad outcomes for bored boys.

I didn’t ask for your opinion thanks

Oh, what's the thread for then, genuinely? You can ask mumsnet to close it if you don't want people to share their opinions

Absolutely, I just don't understand why those who choose not to defer in the best interests of their child, are critical of those who do defer.

Both parents are allowed to make a decision in their child's best interests, and what one parent decides is best for their summer born has no bearing on what another mother thinks is best for their own summer-born.

Yes my deferred son would be 12 months older than a non-deferred August born in the class, but if the parent of that other child thought their child was ready for school at just turned 4 years old then how does that change just because my child is also in the class?

My son being in the classroom doesn't suddenly make a "school ready" child not be school-ready.

A child is either ready for school or not. A parents view on their child's 'readiness' is not dependent on who else is going to be in the classroom.

I just don't understand why there has to be a "them versus us" type of scenario.

And those who do defer will always wonder whether it was necessary.

I think you're referring to me. Please re-read my comments, I have nowhere blanket criticised parents for deferring. I've already said there may be good reasons for deferring individuals, and (as you seem to be offended at me not saying this although it doesn't need saying), I'm sure your reasons for deferring your son were sound.

I'm arguing against blanket deferment of summer borns for no reason other than being summer born.

Unless they shift the cut off for everyone to 1st June, you'll always have some august borns who don't defer so the age gap gets wider, potentially 16 months wide. And my strong view is that being the oldest and most able, in a wide ability class, is no advantage.

We didn’t defer July born DT’s. When they started school their English vocabulary was very poor (they are trilingual so not uncommon to be behind in one language initially) but they soon raced ahead and throughly enjoyed themselves.

Do you find that all the boys born in September, October and November go off the rails? There must be a lot of really naughty boys with permanently bleak futures at your secondary school if this happens to the majority of autumn/winter-born boys that goes there.

All the published research on Summer born boys in education shows a negative correlation between their birth month and their outcomes, and now you're saying that all autumn/winter born boys are likely to go off the rails and have crap futures too. I guess unless a boy is born between Jan-April he's fucked in one way or another.

How strange, I've said nothing of the kind.

Again, please be assured I'm not criticising your parenting in any way. I have no doubt whatsoever that you know your son and know what's best for him. I mean it.

I'm criticising the op's view (as I understand it) that it is advantageous to try to pivot your child to be the oldest in the class in order to have them be the most able in the class, because that, in her words is how to "thrive". My strong opinion, regardless of birthday, is that being the most able does not automatically to thriving.

Please re-read my comments before getting pissed off with them. At no point did I say all September children are xyz. It is op who thinks a blanket policy of deferring is best. I am the one arguing that it depends on the child, and that it may be best in some circumstances (eg your son's, for example), and may be detrimental in others (eg my daughter's), and I went on to explain how/why.

I didn't defer my son for any other reason that the fact he was summer born.

And if you really are concerned about what is best for a child on an individual basis, in relation to you saying: "being the oldest and most able in a wide ability class is no advantage", where do you stand on what is best for the bright September or October children?

Do you think they should be pushed ahead a year as that will be in their best interests because the they'll then be challenged and pushed?

(and that is a genuine question for anyone who has said that being the oldest in the class is a disadvantage for bright children).

Do you think they should be pushed ahead a year as that will be in their best interests because the they'll then be challenged and pushed?

Sure, in some rare individual cases, yes.

And I think my view is a pretty widely held one. If a child is very gifted, many parents would try and send them to a selective school which is in some way comparable with skipping a year.

Many, many parents want their child to be stretched and challenged, within their capability. That's why selective schools exist

You said this:

"And as a teacher (in a boys' secondary), it is rarely beneficial for a boy to be the biggest, cleverest and most bored in the class. Unless it's handled well, bored and clever teenage boys can, and do, go off the rails, sometimes with permanent consequences."

So what point were you making then if not that the majority of the older boys in school are doomed?

Older, clever, and bored.

If a boy is being deferred even though their ability "matches" the year above, then, my own opinion is that that is detrimental and they may be bored, because they'll be bigger and cleverer than everyone else.

I didn't use hyperbole like doom.

I said they can and [sometimes] do go off the rails. Which I believe to be true. This is my view.

You do seem very pissed off with me, and I'm sorry about that. I never intended to seem to criticise you

Your OP, and subsequent posts, are super goady towards parents who don't defer (which is the majority of parents) so of course people have opinions on that.

My friend did it with her son and thankfully she was fully supported by the school.

He started school about 2 days after he turned 5 and he was such a bright boy.

The jump-up to the year above happened around the Covid time because when he was being home schooled he was finding it really easy and so his mum asked the teacher if he could do more challenging work. Seeing as the work was just being done at home as opposed to in a classroom he was given the same work to do that the children from the year above were doing.

When schools eventually re-opened, as he hadn't actually been in a classroom with his peers for god knows how long (I cant remember how long the schools were shut for), and his friendships had fallen to the wayside anyway (due to the Covid rules), his mum asked the Head if he could just be placed into a classroom with the above school year, and he was.

Emotionally and maturity wise there are signs that he is the youngest in the school year, but from an academic point of view he's very, very bright.

Initially the school said that when he got to the end of Year 6 he would have to repeat the school year as he wouldn't be allowed to move up to secondary school with the rest of his year but thankfully she fought it and he started secondary school a few weeks before his 11th birthday.

I'm not angry at you and nor do I feel that you are criticising me personally.

It's the pigeonholing of bright boys who are born in the winter months that I don't feel comfortable with. It's like you're writing them off.

You said it's "rarely" a good thing for a boy to be the oldest and brightest in the class, and I don't think inferring that the majority of the older and brighter boys at school are likely to go off the rails with permanent consequences is a very kind accusation to tar them all with.