Those with July/August children in Y1/2

[Cortina]

Did you find that they found their natural level in the end?

How long did it take for them to find their natural level?

Many children in DS's class are practically a year older than him. He's holding is own and has made progress but still feel like he is always going to be playing 'catch up' with the others.

When do any differences in attainment due to age begin to level off? If they every do..Thanks.

Do teachers take age into account with KS1 SATs?

Research has shown (will try and link tomorrow when not so much wine in system) that children (specifically boys) are much less likely, all other things being equal, to go to university if they are born in July and August.

Of course we all know children born in the summer who are super clever and super mature and do terribly well, but over-all it is indisputable that the youngest children in the year group are disadvantaged.

Only one summer born child on the top table and only one autumn born on the bottom table in our yr 2, the other two tables are weighted in a similar fashion, autumn/winter born dominate the top half, spring/summer dominate the bottom half - surely just a coincidence? Statistically is suggests there is something more going on.
I see the huge leaps my kids make each year, not just in schooling- if they were a year older than their peers, I'm sure they'd benefit from the advantage.

However Dh is a summer born child - he was pretty average throughout primary and started making huge strides in yr 7/8....he ended up with a good degree from Oxford, but his academic ability was in no way apparent in primary.

But less boys go to university anyway - across the board (about 12% I believe). I imagine the girl stats for July/August may be comparable to the boys.

I think we push boys into writing too early and that is the crux of the problem. Over the years, I think more and moe that it's a gender thing.

The 2009 Cambridge Assessment overview of post-1990 research on birthdate effects followed by the Telegraph's summary:

www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/digitalAssets/169664_Cambridge_Lit_Review_Birthdate_d3.pdf

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4611667/Summer-born-children-more-likely-to-struggle-at- school.html

How do season of birth and length of schooling affect children's attainment at key stage 1?
Published in: journal Educational Research, Volume 36, Issue 2 Summer 1994 , pages 107 - 121

The analysis revealed that there were significant differences between children of different age-related groups in all three subjects. Although this was partially the result of differences in the age of the children when tested, other factors were found to be related to the achievement of these groups. The findings indicate that both age on starting school and length of schooling are important factors. Children who started school close to the age of four did less well than others. For older children, length of schooling appeared to relate positively to achievement at key stage 1.

What's age got to do with it? A study of patterns of school entry and the impact of season of birth on school attainment

This research collected information from English and Welsh local education authorities (LEAs) on primary/first school entry policy; and the academic achievements of children in relation to their 'season of birth'. The findings indicate that LEAs are adopting a range of policies, the most common of which are annual (44 per cent), termly (25 per cent) and biannual (23 per cent) patterns of entry. Most schools take four-year-olds, and just under a third of LEAs have changed their policy recently, all in favour of admitting younger fours. The main reason given for changes in entry policy is to address the needs of 'summer-born' children, who are thought to be disadvantaged by spending less time in school than their older classmates. Data from key stage 1 (KS1) and General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) assessments confirm that children who are older in the year-group perform best (although there are some anomalies evident in the month on month trends). It is argued that these findings are due to the differences in age when taking the tests, but may also be influenced by 'age-position effects' and entry policies.

Season of birth, sex and success in GCSE English, mathematics and science: some long-lasting effects from the early years?

The analyses reported were restricted to the cohort in their final year of compulsory schooling by filtering out all those born outside September 1976 and August 1977. Season of birth is related to achievement in all three subjects and the size of the effects observed (autumn-born pupils scoring about 2 to 3 per cent more marks than those born in summer) appears similar to those associated with gender. More complex effects are also identified which appear to relate to school terms and hence school entry policies. Sex differences are apparent within these cyclical patterns of achievement. Age is also related to variations in patterns of entry for vertically differentiated tiers of papers in the GCSE examinations, which govern eligibility for various ranges of grades; with autumn-born pupils more likely to attempt more difficult options. Season-of-birth effects are stronger in coursework than in written examination papers.

Month of birth and academic achiev

Abstract

The degree results of nearly 300,000 British graduates were tabulated by the month of their birth. The number of graduates varied as a function of month of birth. So too, but in a different way, did the quality of their degree results. A number of possible predictors of the results are examined. These analyses suggest that, among those who stay at school until the age of 18, the oldest in their year group are at an advantage but,

by the time they graduate from university, the youngest perform best.

It is concluded that some intellectually relevant quality peaks between 18 and 21 yr of age and then declines.

Ds is in year 1, his birthday is 30th Aug and has amazed me since starting school, he has consistently been in the top half of the class for reading and maths. We don't do SATs here so can't really comment on those.
He tends to struggle more socially, he seems noticably more immature than many of the older children and his natural friends seem to be th younger ones.

There ARE differences in acadenic ability.
My two dd's are Autumn born and have always been at the top of the class. My son however, was born on August 30th and is struggling academically despite the fact that i spend a lot of time trying to help him
I know that he will eventually catch up,but i do feel that he is at a disadvantage both socially and emotionally.

Sorry forehead but I could equally claim there AREN'T difference because my two summer borns were consistently top of their classes but I would be just as wrong as you to reach that conclusion from my family experience alone

My experience is that when the birthday is really doesn't seem to make much difference.

My dn was born end of July, took all 14 GCSEs a year early and got A*s for them all. Her brother who is the first week in September, is struggling with all subjects and has been predicted to get 5 C grade GCSEs if he had put in remarkable effort of revision from Easter to the exams being sat at the moment.

At my school there was very limited weight on age, yes it was a private school, there were 26 in a class 4 classes per year group, and in that year group (my birthday being february, there were children who's birthday were up to the March under me, and those who's birthday were up to the October the year after me) I was in the 'correct' age group. The top sets were made up of the younger ones, they could only really be year ahead of themselves if they were bright enough to be at least in Set 2 (4 sets).

At my dc school, the brightest girl in my dd class is the girl with the September birthday who should be in the year below than she currently is.

Okay this is only my personal experience, but as with all research options, you can always find the research that matches the argument that you want to present.

I totally agree kolacubes and it's really difficult (impossible) to exclude all other variables when conducting research so it is too simple to conclude that one factor alone (birth date) is responsible

I teach a mixed class of yr 5/6. I have some bright year 5's who are a whole year-18 months younger than most of my year 6's but academically on a par, or exceeding, them. My son is an August birthday, was "behind" through Reception ( because he complained all they did was play and he wanted to learn!) and has been academically brighter than the majority of his peers ever since. I don't personally believe age is the "be all and end all" of ability, some children are "brighter" than others, some find academic work easy, some difficult, some are slow learners, others pick things up quickly, some are interested in school work, some are not. All children are different and we shouldn't pigeon hole them based on age, sex, or any other category.

I don?t really understand how people think that the age gap doesn?t make a difference especially in the earlier school years. I know that my DT?s, summer born, at aged nearly 9 are developmentally far behind where they will be aged 10 and far ahead of where they were aged 8. Their ability to develop abstract creative ideas in terms of literacy , their mental maths skills , their maturity skills are all more highly developed as a result of their overall development as much as being in a class where the work is at a higher level that what it would be if they had been born a month later . Dt1 is performing at a level which is above that expected for his age but on a par with the others in his class because he is probably about a year ahead of where he should be. Dt2 is performing at a level lower than that expected for his age and therefore not on a par with his peers. However he is not performing far below that expected for his age and is probably on a par with the level expected in the year below.

I don?t think its useful to compare children as they are all on different levels for their different ages but think of the September borns who are struggling. If they had been born a few weeks earlier they would have had to start a whole year earlier and think how much they would be struggling then, how much more difficult it would be for them to ?catch up?

Generally there is no issue for children who are performing at a level expected for their age or above but for children who are not and who are summer born they surely are at a greater disadvantage than children who are performing at a level lower than expected for their age and are September born .

Cortina
In direct answer to your question my DS1 (end Aug bday) is finishing yr2 and will be 7 in the summer. I have seen a big improvement in his reading and handwriting in the last few months. His gross and fine motor control are improving e.g. more able on a climbing frame, better balance, able to stay within the lines when colouring etc. He is in a private school with 13 in the class and a fair bit of 1-2-1 help so he is not too far behind. In terms of vocab and reasoning I think he has always been at least as good as his peers e.g. his problem was the physical process of reading but his comprehension was very good.

Although it is obvioulsy foolish to assume that all September born children will be top of the class and all summer born children will be bottom, in many cases it is true.

I have a September born DS in Year 2 and a May born DS in Year 1. They are in the same class (mixed Yr 1/2 as it a small village school) and are the eldest and youngest boys in it.

DS1 had the advantage of 5 terms in Reception, to DS2's 3 terms there. They are both bright, but DS1 has the age advantage with fine motor skills etc which has meant that his writing etc was far better at the end of Year 1 than DS2's is now. I have to keep reminding myself that DS2 has only just turned 6 at the end of the school year, whereas DS1 turned 6 within the first fortnight of being in Year 1.

DS2's reading is far better than DS1's was at just turned 6 though, so DS1 isn't better at everything.

I seem to be seeing an improvement in DS2's ability to sit down and concentrate at the moment. I remember DS1 suddenly being better at doing that when he first went into Year 1 and assumed then that it was due to going into the new class. But as DS2 is only doing that now, two and a half terms into Year 1, I am starting to think that it corresponds with them turning 6.

There was a research paper published in 2007 about this: When you are born matters - a basic summary is in this article in the Guardian. It makes fairly depressing reading if you are the parent of a summer born child.

Of course there are exceptions - the top of the class August born and bottom of the class September born. There are also obviously factors of boy/girl, home life , parental involvement etc etc. However in the early years age certainly does make a difference, in DS's class (Yr2)out of the 6 children who are deemed to need extra literacy support 5 are summer born and the other one has other issues.

"Generally there is no issue for children who are performing at a level expected for their age or above but for children who are not and who are summer born they surely are at a greater disadvantage than children who are performing at a level lower than expected for their age and are September born ." @paranoid2

I disagree - the summer born is no more or less disadvantaged than the autumn born - if a child is performing lower. If you want to have the other argument isn't the September born more at a disadvantage, as by your logic, in a year's time its fine as the summer born will have reached that standard, but the September born won't and will still be older.

I have seen this type of argument over so many aspects at school.

A child is either more intelligent or has a skill not due to their age or size, or any other reason that another parent wants it to be rather than saying oh well done to someone else's child, not my child would be as good as that if it wasn't for x.

For example:

my daughter is tiny and very sporty and whenever she wins any races (swimming/running etc) the other parents first comment is not well done, but oh of course she'll win she's so much smaller she's lighter than the other children.

my son is huge and very sporty and whenever he wins any race the other parents first comment is not well done, but oh of course he'll win he's so much bigger, his leg stride is longer than the other children.

Another example of people using evidence to justify to themselves why their child didn't win.

I just don't understand it!

Paranoid2, those were exactly the points I was trying to make; to you and to me it just seems common sense.

I wonder if those people who say there is no difference between an August-born just turned 8 year old and a September-born about to turn 9 year old believe that those nearly 9 year olds have made no developmental progress in the previous 11 months. Because that would seem to be the logical conclusion.

But singersgirl if a September 9 year old in a class is not performing at the same level as the rest of the class what's the reason for that?

And whatever that reason is - why can't that be the reason that the August born is not performing at the same level as the rest of the class?

singersgirl you seem to be completely misunderstanding what people are saying.
Hopefully all children will be making progress over their time in school, but the level they are atfor an August born just turned 8 or September born rising 9 depends on their starting point which isn't necessarily going to show the younger child as less able than the older child.

It's not about individual children being less or more able. That's completely missing the point about the birth date effect.

It's about the fact that the same child will be more developmentally advanced in 12 months time whatever their birth date, unless they have some significant underlying issues. So as a group, younger children are statistically disadvantaged. My August-born son may have an incredible vocabulary, but he will have an even more incredible vocabulary this time next year.

However, there is no age weighting for GCSE's etc so if the difference persists then summer borns may be at a disadvantage when it comes to formal exams because they are up to 11 months younger than some of their peers. I appreciate this is a generalisation and there are always exceptions ( I am Aug born and was top of my class in most subjects) but broadly the research does suggest that summer borns do less well at GCSE's etc. One of the reasons I have gone down the private route is that there is only 1 intake in Sept, the classes are small and there is a fair bit of 1-2-1 support to reduce the impact of DS1 birth date in his early years in school.

So by that argument ChazsBarmyArmy lets take it up to University level - should all summer babies be encouraged to take a gap year, and all autumn babies be encouraged to go straight to university, so once at university they are all the same age? Or as is seen that at university there are every age, and age doesn't have a bearing on the grade received at the end of the degree?

i.e. the majority of mature students should be the ones with the firsts and the majority of the summer babies straight from school would be the ones with the 3rds.