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?

Yes, if there were 2 classes and Billy was in the Mar-Aug class, he would be on the top table for reading with all the attendant confidence boosting that comes with it. As it is he'll be somewhere in the middle.

I think the issue for me is mostly about flexibility of start dates for summer-born children. Some of them will be fine in their 'proper' year group. Some would be much better in the year below, not so that they can be top of the class, but so they can hold their own.

DS2 was born 4 hours before September 1st - he only just squeaked into his school year. It's ludicrous to suggest that, if he'd been born 4 hours later and started school a year later, he'd have followed exactly the same academic path at school, particularly in the early years.

ds is end august -

started bottom of class
y2 top 5 in class
rest of years almost top/top

left school last week - will let you know A levels!

I know - I find the thinking that my just turned 4 year old would have achieved the same if he had been born a few days later and started at 5 bizarre.

Ah well I'm glad my Dt's started at a school that had teachers that recognised the fact that children in the early years have lots of different levels of attainment due to a mix of issues including difference in ages. Thankfully Dt1 is now doing well as a result and Dt2 as well as can be expected due to his additional issues

I think a lot of the issues for younger children is what they learn about learning when they first go to school.

Imagine a child joining Reception and just not being developmentally ready for an academic curriculum. By this I mean still finding it difficult to sit still on the carpet for short periods of time, being completely uninterested in letters and sounds, be lacking the co-ordination to make meaningful shapes when drawing and writing, not yet having learned how to co-operate with others etc.

If that child is then put into a situation where they are expected to sit still on the carpet, where the focus is on subjects that are meaningless to them (literacy), to sit down and write etc, they they are likely to experience repeated frustration and failure. They are also then likely to respond as the vast majority of us do when we find things difficult - they switch off. And when they switch off, they don't spend as much time "on task" practising new skills. As a result they fall further behind their peers, soon they realise their place in the academic "pecking order" and give up even more. A vicious cycle can set in.

Now it seems blindingly obvious to me that a child who is only just 4 is ON AVERAGE likely to be less developmentally ready for an academic curriculum than the AVERAGE child who is nearly 5. Obviously their will be exceptions.

On the radio a couple of months ago, I heard someone saying that in Scandanavian countries where the starting age for an academic curriculum is 7, there is no difference between the academic performance of older and younger children. Maybe this is because by the time they start to learn formally, ALL children are developmentally ready and so none are disadvantaged in the way I have suggested above simply because of when they were born.

ds is a late July baby - his birthday is usually the first day of the hols - and has been fine at school. Always at the top end of the scale for reading/literacy/numeracy.

One of his friends has an August birthday and did take a while to get into reading - think his mother felt pressured and despairing that he hadn't got it. I had the impression perhaps school weren't saying 'look, he's a year younger than those girls born in September who are already reading The Mill On The Floss in reception, let's be patient'.

Just read your most recent message kolacubes.

I think you are missing the point. The OP was asking the question as to when the age gap became irrelevant and my points are about trying to convince people that an age gap can be responsible for a difference in attainment levels within the same year following claims that its completely irrelevant. I know that there are other factors but age is one.

Incidently Dt1 is also very small and light and runs like a whippet and people do recite that as being a reason why he wins. They are partly right, As with academic achievement there are lots of reasons for success. I suspect that if he ever decides to progress further with athletics that there will be some cut off date which will work to his disadvantage!

neolara the point is that as a reception teacher every year I see younger (summer birthdays) children developmentally ready for school and every year I see older children (autumn birthdays) not ready developmentally.
If only were that simple that as teachers we could look at the month /season of birth and say that child is ready and that child isn't. Instead we have to treat each child as an individual and judge "readiness" ... and blindingly obvious to you or not life just isn't that clear cut.

But we all know that, mrz. We all know that at the level of the INDIVIDUAL child birth date is not the only important factor. But what you seem to keep ignoring is that fact that if you take all the summer-born children and all the autumn-born children and average out their results, the autumn born children AS A GROUP do significantly better, particularly at primary school.

That group contains Johnny the genius and Mary who has trouble learning to read and Peter who does everything bang slap when the curriculum tells him to.

And what this information tells us is that fewer summer-born children are developmentally ready to start school, and far, far fewer are developmentally ready to start school and immediately excel. Neolara's points about the carpet time and the concentration are bang on.

dd is late August, just finishing yr 5. She is in top 5 of her class. There are three other August born, none are struggling. The ones who are struggling, as it happens, are some of the older ones. So I feel that at her stage the age thing is not an issue from an academic viewpoint. But emotionally and in terms of organisation, stamina, consistency I still feel her age (and having no older siblings) can be a bit of an issue (or an excuse, if you want to look at it that way!)

Cortina,

The reassuring thing about your son is that he is "holding his own".

It is all about individuals, as mrz says, though I hope she realises that as a matter of simple arithmetic, if you made a list of all the struggling children that all teachers in the country come across, there would be more summer-borns on that list than autumn borns.

When you read the awful statistics, you have to remember that the children who are affected throughout their education are likely to be the ones who combine their July/August birthday with some other factor personal to them that creates a bit of a "double whammy" (such as, for instance, being immature compared with other children born in the same month as them, or - alternatively - being mature enough to realise they are behind and "switching off" from education due to lack of classroom support).

It doesn't sound as though these additional factors apply, so with your support and school's support, I'm sure he will find his natural level within the next few years.

We have deferred our son for a year, he will start reception at 5.0 in the state system. It has transformed his life chances. This is not just my view, but the view of the SENCO, headteacher, paediatrician and speech therapist.
He was one of the "Classic" types of children for whom either an autumn birthday or year-deferral is crucial: late August birthday PLUS some special needs that meant he was not reaching the social communiation milestones for a 3 year old - let alone a 4 year old! - until the term after he had been due to start reception. Once the special needs were being addressed, and he was ready to start practising communication skills, it was desperately important to place him in a cohort where there were a reasonable number of peers at the same social communication level (ie the year below his official year) and he flew...... had we been forced to put him into reception in his "official" year, his best hope would have been to retreat into academia and be protected by the most socially mature children of the class.

I think that year-deferral should always be allowed if a developmental paediatrician recommends it.

Lingle I wish you and your son well, you sound very informed and well prepared. I am sure your son will do very well and enjoy school, best of luck to him.

lingle

"It is all about individuals, as mrz says, though I hope she realises that as a matter of simple arithmetic, if you made a list of all the struggling children that all teachers in the country come across, there would be more summer-borns on that list than autumn borns."

The problem with simple arithmetic is that if we made a list of all the struggling children in the country, there would be more from single parent households, low income household, have high levels of absence from school, have only had access to one term in reception year, have not attended nursery, have parents with low level education, be boys...etc etc etc.
and if they happen to be summer born boys from a single parent family living on low income and have high levels of absence from school ... well you can imagine...

Other than limited reception time, the factors you mention are independent of birth month....

Exactly! but still contribute to poor progress in school! Which only goes to show that statistics can prove any point you want to make.

So give me the solution?

If it is purely down to age and somebody wants to keep Billy back a year. Billy becomes top of the class, gets chosen to see the mayor etc.

And all the other parents in the class say 'Of course Billy is chosen it's because he's the oldest in the class.'

There always has to be the oldest and the youngest in the class, unless you have a class that's for each day of the year. And then you'd still encounter parents who would say

'Of course Billy is chosen, he is 5 minutes older he's more advanced.'

kolacubes,

the only solution required is some flexibility to ensure that children who are immature either in pre-academic skills or social communication skills and who also have summer birthdays get the chance to start school a year later, thus avoiding the "double whammy" effect I describe above.

I'm not talking about little Jessica not winning prizes for a few years, I'm talking about children who would need Statements if forced into school early.

mrz, I don't understand you. What point are you answering?

Cortina - DS1 is august born and coming to the end of year one.

Academically he's come on in huge leaps this year but was doing fine in reception.

I would say he's struggled far more with the social/emotional side of school and friendships.

He's in a small class which I'm very glad about as was very worried about him starting school as an august born boy.

He's a bright boy I think so not too worried. However ds2 is definitely a bit slower and for that reason I am very glad that he's a winter baby so will be one of the older ones.

Regarding sports - am sure I read recently a piece saying how a large proportion of top sportsman/footballers were autumn/winter children.

But why can't a child who's immature in either skills but is born in September start later too?

I thought there was the option to delay start, or am I wrong? I thought you could start after the term you turned 5 or something. But that doesn't stop someone coming bottom in the class.

I accept that I could be wrong, because primary level for myself and my children, I only have experience of private where all children are in different years. And it's down to ability.

By lingle Wed 09-Jun-10 19:40:13
Other than limited reception time, the factors you mention are independent of birth month....

this one

My DS is 21 on July 15th.
He has always been emotionally more immature than the rest of his peers.
He struggled for years because he was just not ready emotionally ready for school.
He could have stayed on at 6th form, but chose to do a brivklaying apprenticeship.
he has now finished and is currently unemployed. He struggled with sitting still, with writing, although, academically he is quite bright.
At school, he was always friends with the younger children, and even now lots of his friends are younger than he is.
How much is down to his character and how much is down to starting school at just 4 years old, before he was emotionally equipped to deal with it, I will never know.
But when i compare him with DD, who is September born and the oldest in her class, I can't help thinking that starting school at just 4 has been hard for him. Not academically, but emotionally and socially.

"Exactly! but still contribute to poor progress in school! Which only goes to show that statistics can prove any point you want to make."

So if they can prove any point you want to make, find me the statistics that show me that children from low income families do better than children from high income families. Make the statistics show me that children born in the summer do better than children born in the winter. Go on, show me.

What your list of factors shows is that summer birth date is not the only factor contributing to disadvantage at school. It doesn't show that it's not a significant factor. We shouldn't disregard something just because other things have an even greater effect.

Interesting stuff - thank you - especially helpful to see the teachers' views.

It seems so intuitively sensible to me - I really empathise with the sitting on the carpet stuff - great debate

I can show you the report that says social class is the most significant factor in a chid's educational success ie not birthday!

and the one that says girl's living with a single parent mother and boys living with a single parent father achieve more than girls with fathers and boys with mothers

and the one that says children growing up without their biological father are less likely to attain qualifications ...

which somehow contradicts the previous study...

and children are more likely to achieve if they live with one parent rather than with two parents who are in conflict ...

which of course raises questions about the previous study ...