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?

Ok showing you can get research to do anything you want - I'm sure if I looked further I'd find more.

But with regards to the comment that sportsmen are more likely to be winter babies that was earlier in the thread, I found somebody else has carried out the following research:

Incidentally, the England football statistic may be misleading. There have been 296 England footballers born since the end of World War II, with birthdays distributed thus:
Jan 23
Feb 35
Mar 22
Apr 20
May 19
Jun 14
Jul 24
Aug 27
Sep 20
Oct 37
Nov 29
Dec 26

Further research for against

These data, reported by economists Kasey Buckles and Daniel Hungerman at the University of Notre Dame, may offer an explanation for the observation that, compared to ?summer babies,? those born in winter months tend to do more poorly in school, are less healthy, earn less, and have shorter lifespans.

But they have different school cut off dates in North America, anyway, even though that study looks interesting. The study Devexity linked to, however, reviewed data from different countries with different school cut offs precisely to rule out the possibility that it was something to do with the health/ability of babies born in the summer.

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

None of Mrz's studies disproved the fact that birthdate is significant.

Actually, I'm bored with this now. I have read extensively on this, and logic and data are both on my side.

mrz - did you miss out a line in the last post quoting me? it doesn't make sense - just says "this one".

singersgirl, I hear you.

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if iots been said already.I think statistically summer born children are still behind at GCSE

By mrz Wed 09-Jun-10 20:13:59
By lingle Wed 09-Jun-10 19:40:13
"Other than limited reception time, the factors you mention are independent of birth month...."

no I didn't miss it out this is the full post I responded to...

singersgirl I never claimed they did only that there are a huge number of factors that influence achievement and birthdate is only one and unless a study excludes all other factors it isn't going to give an accurate picture.

and surely it doesn't mater what term dates are there are always going to be older and younger children in the group.

I'm thinking a study into the effect of birth dates on educational outcomes which does not in some way manage to eliminate the effect of other factors, isn't a properly conducted study. Will have a look at the study later - but it would surprise me if they hadn't considered other effects, when at least drawing their conclusions. Maybe Oxford would have done a better job.

Hi DS born 30th August - youngest out of 60 (2 form entry. Academically more than holding his own - top table (although we're not supposed to know this!) for reading, numeracy and writing. He can be a little emotionally immature sometimes and "HATES" being the youngest. Just got to suck it up though and I keep telling him that when he's older he'll be happy to be younger.
Only problems arise when people think he's older than he is - he's quite tall and has a great vocabulary, so often other people's expectations of him are too great for his little 6 year old being. Your DS will be just fine. Good teachers are on top of it and know where each member of the class falls in the age spectrum. Never does any harm to remind them of it from time to time though.....

Also, 2 nieces both summer born. Both now junior doctors. Age is one factor in attainment but it can be compensated for by parental involvement, effective teaching, motivated children and an exciting curriculum.

I don't think there's any real challenge to "When you are Born Matters" and the Cambridge Review. Government accepted that if you take the whole pool of summer-born children, the probability of lower attainment at 18 is statistically signficant. They didn't accept that happily - they knew it would bring extra cost - they would have loved to have been told that it didn't matter.

Statistical predictions get more accurate as you adjust for more variables (background, SN, etc)

So I suspect that the probability of an August born child who is of average or better maturity for his/her birth month from a supportive family in a supportive school suffering a long-term (to 18) effect on his/her prospects is likely to be very low (no consolation I know if the child who does still suffer long-term happens to be yours....)

However, combine that August birth date with another factor though - say, a child with special needs in language and social communication like my son - and you have a far far higher probability of a long term effect. The greater the immaturities compared to other children of the same birth month, the harder it is to compensate for the August birth date by attentive parenting/good teaching. So kids like mine -I mean the ones who don't get to year-defer - skew the statistics. Year-deferral for us was not about being top of the class - it was a lifeline.

Now of course year-deferral is no cure-all if you have special needs that are going to be life-long. But it is important if you have a biological delay that you will eventually overcome but which means you really really need to be in a play-based environment for longer than other kids born in your birth month. And this is where our early school start is unfortunate. If we started them at 6, the immature ones would have had their chance to "even out".

I believe it is not all doom and gloom for summer borns

By six or seven most have matured enough to be 'in the mix' and not obviously young

academically - of course with the right support they can thrive

IME there are positive aspects to being summer born - starting at the lower end of the ability range can instill real 'drive' into some children and a good work ethis can be a real gift as the child gets older

I have personal experience of real complacency in autumn borns who sail into primary school 'king of the castle' and then get a real shock at secondary shcool when the playing field has levelled

loads of typos there - October born me - nuff said

But PPP if a school is doing its work, the autumn borns shouldn't be sailing through, they should be striving to achieve more. Therefore the 'shock' of secondary school is eliminated.

i totally agree Kola but have argued my way through three children at primary and no effect