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?

I think by the time you reach Uni other factors kick in like beer consumption etc. I don't think its valid to extrapolate to Uni because for example mature students may have childcare pressures, have less practice at passing exams, Sept borns may work hard or drink hard ditto summer borns. There are too many other variables to be able to accurately pinpoint the birth age effect.

But Chazs that's what my argument is there are too many variables the whole way through, I am driven mad by this argument currently in RL. As I demonstrated earlier with a very few examples I've not noticed a problem with birthdays. I can go on and on with more and more examples of it, but I can't be bothered to write it and I'm sure more so you can't be bothered to read it.

But in one of my dc class the year group is young, small class but 90% have birthdays during summer holidays (July and August), and the other 10% spread throughout the year. Now naturally due to numbers some of these summer babies are ahead, on par with the 10% who aren't extreme summer babies.

Now the parents of the ones who aren't continuously compare their children and then say well its because they are summer babies. And I want to say it isn't I'm sorry but children will achieve different levels overall and not all children will be the same level, and yes some children will get there slower, but please stop saying its because of your child's birthdate, as there are others in the same class proving this is not the case.

And if any of the 10% other birthday children get any sought of academic recognition these parents are the first to say well of course they are more academic they are older. This is not a straightforward correlation in my book, so unfair comment.

But, Kolacubes, have you even read the research? Individual children have different abilities. But statistically being born in the summer is a disadvantage in this country's education system.

As it happens, my August-born son is one of the highest attainers in his Y4 class. So what? That doesn't mean that he wouldn't be attaining even more highly if he were 11 months older.

Ok so singersgirl your son gets A* for his GCSEs, you then say oh if he was in the year behind and therefore the oldest he would of done even better? It's irrelevant.

If your ds gets Bs will you be saying well that's good, but this system is screwed because if he was the year below and the oldest in the class he'd of got A*s?

Or if he does get Bs do you say, that's really good I'm proud of him, or even alternatively, if he hadn't had that eye on that girl, and spent less time FB he could of nailed those extra marks.

My point is when I said it levels out at Uni, it levels out long before that because there are enough other variables in life not just to be date of birth.

Kolacubes the research suggests that the difference in attainment between summer born and autumn born children persists to GCSE. I think there are less variables with school than Uni although I agree that other factors also influence school performance.

What my son does is irrelevant, though. I only mentioned him to show that I have no personal axe to grind. The examples of children in your DCs' classes are also irrelevant. Of course there are loads of variables in any child's life.

What isn't irrelevant, though, is that there appears to be a large body of consistent data across countries that show that the youngest children in any cohort are at an educational disadvantage.

Off to bed now anyway.

In my view its nonsense to suggest that age doesn?t make a difference especially in the early years. Take 2 children of equal ability for their age aged 4 and 5 . A child of 5 is developmentally 20% ahead of a child of 4. That diminishes with age. A child of 12 should only be 8% ahead of a child of 11 with the impact reducing. Also to suggest that its incorrect to assume your child is below others in the same class because of the age gap is not true. As I said previously my DT1 was ahead of where he needed to be for his age but below others ,20% older than him in some cases, because they too were probably ahead of where they should have been for their age. I knew that his immaturities, his ability to sit still and focus long enough to learn in a structured environment were 100% the reason for him not being in top groups. He enjoyed learning through play and it took a while for him to learn to write , read etc which was all fine
However now he is in the top groups for most things and doing really well.

Kolacubes what would you say were the reasons for him being in the lower groups in the early years if age is not responsible?

Dt2 on the other hand has issues other than being the youngest in his year. I always knew he had these issues and that he would struggle. I also would have loved if he had the opportunity of being in the year below as it would have been a more natural fit for him. OTOH I knew DT1 was not going to have significant issues when the age factor was reduced and I was right. I also know that as Singersgirl said that he will be more capable in a years time and would have even better results if he was still in yr3 rather than yr4. To say that age doesn?t make a difference is the same as saying that your child doesn?t become more advanced as they get older.

Kolacubes you seem to feel that your children are not being recognised enough for their successes as this is diminished by people saying their own children can't achieve as much as they are younger?
However I still think in the early years age /development does matter. It like saying my 2 year old can pedal a trike because she is very coordinated, clever, advanced and that your 1 year old must be slower less brainy because they can't pedal a trike. NO it is because there is a years difference in age and a 1 year old is not as developed as a 2 year old. Why does this difference then cease at primary school age?

Does it iron out at university really? I always thought that summerborns did better at uni because fewer of them make it, and those that do are genuinely brighter.

Autumn borns often do better in their A'Levels because of the advantage that maturity confers.

I think singersgirl has it exactly right.

An August child may be up with the highest achieving September-born child, BUT, had they been born a week or two later and been in the year below they would be hailed as a genius.

IMO it's not so much the academic side of things that is the problem. It's annoying things such as it's always the older children who are picked for such activities as going to tea with the mayor, representing the school etc and, my particular bugbear, having age-inappropriate lessons foisted on them eg warts and all sex education when they are not yet 11 (a year makes a HUGE difference here).

One of the interesting things explored in 'Outliers' is the compound disadvantage being younger can have - or, put it the other way, the compound advantage being older can have.

So when a tall mature 5 year old starts Reception they are more articulate, more confident, with better handwriting and gross motor skills, as well as being better able to concentrate than a small, less mature 4 year old. Of course the 5 year olds get the speaking parts in the play and are identified as being the sporty ones. And so they get more chances to play football or meet the mayor or do advanced maths. And so they really do get better at all these things.

I'd be interested to know whether these summer born high achieving children are younger siblings -- this seems to make a difference from what I can see but perhaps my sample size is too small?

Anyone know? Thank you ...

WhoKnew2010 in my DS's Yr2 class there is one summer born on the "top" table - he has an older brother. I really do feel that DS has it all stacked against him - summer born , boy and first born! Although others on here would argue that I should just accept DS simply isn't as clever as other children!

I've never heard that theory before WhoKnew.

I thought it was normally considered to be first borns who traditionally excelled and became leaders etc

Paranoid2 - I would say it's due to the plateuas and peaks and troughs that ALL children go through.

Does this mean that all spring time babies are the world's average children. No funny enough some spring time babies are geniuses, and some struggle, and some are average, and that is the same of all children.

The point re mayor is exactly it, so do teachers choose the most confident child who can cope with meeting a stranger and be a good representative for the school to meet the mayor, or does the teacher look down the birth dates and say oh yes Jack is very confident but because Emily's birthday was in October, and Jack is in July, Emily is the chosen one.

So therefore as parents of Jack and all the other July babies your first reaction is oh of course Emily got picked because she is the oldest, not that Emily is such a confident individual I can see why they picked Emily.

No - we go back to the point that Emily may be the confident one - BUT BUT BUT if you took Jack in ten months' time he would be equally as confident.

If Emily and Jack were clones and the only difference was that one was born in September and the other August, Emily would always (at primary school, anyway) be ahead by dint of her extra time on this earth.

No you pick Jack who in spite of his ten fewer months on this earth (being the youngest) is the most confident and who will in ten months time still be the most confident even though Emily is ten months older

So kolacubes we have Billy aged 5 years and 1 day going into Yr1 and Jack aged 6 yrs also going into yr1. Billy has a reading age of 5.5 yrs and Jack has a reading age of 6.5ys. They are both doing as well as each other and I cant see for the life of me how you could think that age was irrelevant and really Jack is doing far better. Nobody is saying that all spring time babies are average. I and others were trying to take other variables out just to show that age HAS to be an issue , not the only issue but in many cases a significant one.

So paranoid2 we have Billy aged 5 years and 1 day going into Yr1 and Jack aged 6 yrs also going into yr1. Billy has a reading age of 5.5 yrs and Jack has a reading age of 6.5ys. They are both doing as well as each other and are both achieving beyond their age so both have made good progress so why do you think there is a problem?

But paranoid2 they are both performing at appropriate level.

The teacher for ease may well set them, and Billy would be in one group and Jack would be in another group, but Billy could still be a high flying executive, Jack could still be a drug addict, in 20 years time.

It is irrelevant. Would Billy be in a better position to be in an academic situation where there is a class for Sep-Feb babies and One for Mar-Aug? No he would still be reading.

Or then would it be a case of, if the teacher setted the group for ease, and Billy was in lower group because all the March ones were reading at 5.7yrs? Would it still be well of course Billy would be so much more advanced if he was in the top group, and was the oldest in the class?

mrz you replied so much more concisely than me, thank you, I presume your birthday must be earlier in the academic year than me.

First born

Ah that's why you see, I'm middle child and middle of the year, I'm destined to be B for Bloody Average.

Good something else to blame my parents for

The problem being that despite younger children doing as well for their age as older children they can still end up bottom of the class which is fine as someone has to be bottom and there has to be some cut off point but dont say that age is not a factor in the achievements of young children. Kolacubes seems to think that Jack is actually more advanced based on the following:

"some children will get there slower, but please stop saying its because of your child's birthdate"

Can only speak from my experience. My ds2 is August born and has found school very difficult. Struggles to keep up and is no where near the level at which a majority of his peers are. My December boy flew through, no probs and excelled in primary school. There are 4 boys is ds2's class on the SEN register, all Summer babies. As I said, this is purely my own experience.