Research: September-borns do better at GCSE?

[stubiff]

Following on from my offer here

TeenTimesTwo asked

Do children born in September perform better at GCSE? Does the most recent evidence still suggest it?

Caveats/Disclaimers:
We are talking averagely, not every child born in September.
The graph is from FFT (see below).
There may be other reports/data you want to look at.
If you know of any other relevant reports then please shout.
Don't shoot the messenger!

Data Source IFS
"...large differences in educational attainment between children born at the start and end of the academic year in England."
"differences are largest soon after children start school and decrease as they get older."
"relative to children born in September, children born in August are 6.4% less likely to achieve five GCSEs or equivalents at grades A*–C."
"and around 2% less likely to go to university at age 18 or 19"
"and around 2.3% less likely to attend a high-status Russell Group institution if they do"
"even a one-month difference in age has an effect"
"those born in January are 2.8% less likely to achieve five A*–C grades in GCSE"
"those born in August are 5.4% more likely to be labelled as having mild special educational needs at age 11"

Data Source FFT
Data Source FFT Education Datalab
"August-born pupils close the gap as they get older but remain behind September-born peers by the end of KS4."
"in terms of raw attainment (Attainment 8), they (Aug-born) remain 0.3 grades per subject behind (Sep-born)"

Data Source Durham University
"Probably the simplest solution in the short term is to routinely age-standardise all assessment results."
"no valid reason why the younger children in each year group should have a worse chance in education because of a bureaucratically convenient decision outside their control."

I don't think it's a simple as just to do with the age at GCSEs etc.

One statistic someone's written is the Oxbridge winter borns. I went to Oxford (not a winter born!) and there are far more September/October/November borns among my friends. However a good proportion of them are 1 or 2 years ahead. So actually were younger than the summer borns in their year. if I discount those who were working ahead, the number of winter borns is almost exactly what you'd expect proportionally.

According to our shoe shop, children's feet grow more in the Spring. So maybe there's actually a premium time of year to be pregnant to develop the academic side? Would be interesting to look at countries with different cut offs. I think any study that does look at this in the UK should be looking also at other countries to see what similarities and differences there are.

But one thing that I think does effect summer born, and especially summer born boys, is low expectation. I've a summer boy and I think every teacher through primary, and some at secondary have said some version of "he's doing very well, struggling with concentration, but he's a summer born boy, he'll grow into it."
I've seen children who behave similarly to him but are winter born or girls and they have had intervention from a young age. Don't get me wrong, he's improved a lot, but his concentration level is still below average.

So what I'm saying here is that by saying "we expect less of the summer boys" we're making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because less is expected, help isn't given in the same way to improve, and they're acting down to their expectations.

You couldn't do age standardisation for GCSEs. What about the person who takes it early or late? But also it would continue with the expectations, and you would find universities taking that into consideration. "You see they're summer born, so their grade 5 isn't worth the same as the winter born's grade 5".
Then teaching "we don't need to teach that to the summer born boys, because they can get a 9 without the top question..."

Other countries- are the same youngest do worst. (Relative still with diff months being youngest)
But i think possibly some the gap isnt as much. Due to starting later than 4.
4 is too young to learn for many. They literally are not ready to write.

I have not yet had a teacher say about birth month. But dc is doing ok (not to their potential though).
I think the fact adhd/asd etc dyslexia will be diagnosed by a particular age have a negative affect on summer ones as they are further up the ladder.
I expect many countries allow delay/deferral and resitting years.
The Cambridge data said it was a particular year group so not those pushed ahead etc.
At uni i was the only summer birthday among friends (uk ones).
Other countries have different cut offs to weather/ seasons eg Scotland Feb/Mar but the youngest still do worse so it is not weather/brain growth. Although apparently summer dc are on average taller...
I think it is a trickle that adds up to a flood, all downwards. Because the only 'good' thing for Aug would be 'not being bored' and parents saving childcare costs

Parties
Taller
Sport
Friends
More skills before school read/write/maths/swim/cycle/monkey bars/draw
Concentration
Behaviour
Pick to represent things

Some schools combine yr groups so youngest could be by 24+ months whereas oldest experience being oldest by 24m or friendships with youngest /oldest of year above.

Also with friendships if say you are in bottom set your friends may ne there too or you friends may be more likely to be other SB so easier distracted etc.

Whereas say older/younger sibs although oldest ususlly do better the youbgest may have gained things like fittness or language etc from having an older sib so helps them with other things at school.

Some things I have learned about sport in UK which may be of use to other summer born DC.
Cricket up to age 10/11 in a match every child has to rotate round every position, bowl the same number of balls & bat two overs. There will be one or two who shine but it is to no-ones advantage to focus only on improving them.
Tennis has move up dates every six months so less wide age gaps within the age group you play.
Hockey is odd. Club age groups run in alignment with school years. But if you move up a level to county they run on calendar year...so a Dec child will be youngest in that squad.

love, I know that is what is recommended in cricket but it certainly doesn't happened in junior county set ups and , once they graduate to hard ball(about age 12) the size/physique etc thing kicks right back in. At the public schools. they really nurture their 'talent' and this again tends to focus on the fastest /strongest/most confident. There are definitely big problems in junior cricket : Jimmy Anderson (who did, of course eventually make it) writes quite eloquently on being overlooked when he was a youngster because he was smaller.

Just read this whole thread with interest. The data is quite stark.

I have a late August DS still at primary who is achieving very well academically, which in turn positively affects his confidence, self-image, and aspirations.

Emotionally and socially, KS1 and especially YR were very tough, but things have improved lately (now going into Y5). He seems rather mature for his age, which might have to do with him being surrounded by older children (but never having been given the role of class baby/class clown) and being able to learn from that. Also expectations for behaviour have always been tailored to older children, and he has been lucky enough to have been able to rise to those expectations.
I suspect though that the differences might become more tangible again as puberty approaches, and the children's brains go through new developmental stages.

I would speculate that the main reason for the massive differences at KS1 are developmental differences at starting school, where the 1 year difference is a whole quarter of the 4yo's life, along with YR being 'designed' for 5yos and Y1 for 6yos, and KS1 SATS measuring expected learning outcomes at age 7 despite 1/6 of the children who take them not being 7 yet.
I would then speculate that the largest part of the persisting differences up to GCSE level are a direct effect of a) the children's early experiences of school, and b) their early attainment.
b: With all the ways teacher expectations influence their teaching, and the targets set based on earlier attainments, statistically a child's KS1 attainment can become 'prophetic'.
a: A child who has internalised the view that they are 'not as clever' as their 'peers' or just find that school doesn't suit them, might be affected by this for life.
Both a and b would hold for social and emotional aptitude, and behaviour, as well.

With regards to sports, DS is very sporty but only very recently has begun to be acknowledged for this (causing some upset as his achievements caused some autumn born boys who were accustomed to having places in teams to suddenly lose out). Again, I believe this to be a temporary reprieve from age about 8.5 (his peers all being 9+) until statistically his peers start getting their puberty testosterone boosts and him having to wait another year or so - he won't be catching that one up anymore.

I know this doesn't count as sports in England, but DS plays chess competitively and again there appear to be strong effects. If he had been born a couple of weeks later, he'd be being 'noticed' right now, which would be opening up opportunities (such as coaching and training). But there are also advantages. Many competitions go by school year group and him being young in his year rather than old in the year below means that he gets to play against stronger opponents and therefore gain valuable experience; also the very young age groups obviously see many as yet ungraded and low graded children, so it is harder to achieve a high grade oneself (grades are determined by one's opponents' grades and one's results against them). The grades are used for international selections, and international youth competitions go by calendar year not school year, so Autumn borns are doubly disadvantaged - they are the youngest hoping to be selected, but 'at home' they usually compete against even younger and on average low or ungraded opponents, making it really hard to achieve the necessary grades (whilst being much more likely to bring home trophies and confidence boosts from any one particular local competition that goes by school year).

I meant to add, regarding what could be done better:

Early school experiences should be positive for all children, not predominantly (statistically) for the oldest in year.

The actual starting school age need not be a problem, as long as what school is, is tailored to the age group. As the developmental differences between 4 and 5 year olds are larger than between 6 and 7 year olds, it will be harder to create a school environment and curriculum that suits all children in the cohort when they are younger.
But 5yos won't be 'held back' by an environment that suits 4yos, whereas 4yos will suffer by being put into an environment that has been designed for 5yos.

As I believe that the long-term birth month effects are due to a large extent to internalised beliefs (I'm not good at maths/school is hard/everybody else can behave as expected but for me it is a struggle/...) deriving from early school experiences, the way to fix it would be to firmly design school around the needs of the youngest end of the cohort.
For the first few years this would mean that some of the older children in the cohorts would 'learn less' than they would strictly be capable of. Some children can deal with more formal school environments and benefit from being pushed to learn a lot at a young age. But the vast majority wouldn't be shortchanged by e.g. having a more play-based environment for longer. Nor would they suffer from not being pushed to learn something (e.g. to read) at age 5 - they might be capable of learning at age 5, but it won't harm them if they don't learn until age 6.

And in the long term, the older children too would benefit. The curriculum and environment being tailored towards the youngest wouldn't make much difference anymore by the time they're 8 or 9, and the class as a whole wouldn't be held back (as it is too often) by the fact that a significant proportion of their classmates has already given up on school/internalised the belief that they 'can't do this'/ taken on class clown roles with according behaviour.

In short, make the early years a positive experience for all children (by tailoring them to the youngest in the cohort) and everyone will profit and learn more in the long term.

Another idea is presented by Switzerland, where they have introduced a 4-year 'school introduction stage' starting around age 4.5 (for the young-in-year) and going to about age 9.5 (for the old-in-year), covering what used to be two years of Kindergarten and the first two years of primary school. Within this stage any child can, if they have the inclination to, learn rather a lot in terms of maths and reading/writing, but nobody is pushed to if they aren't ready yet. In the first year, very few children will be doing much in terms of the three R's (but nobody will be stopped/held back/deprived of resources), by the fourth year, nearly every child will be (and if they aren't, there will be investigations and extra support).