Competitions and winter born advantage...

[Mumto2two]

In terms of competitions such as Bebras, Primary Maths challenge etc., it does seem that without any form of age adjustment, older children are clearly advantaged.
Our daughter is summer born, so at age 8 had a high merit on Bebras in the 8-10 category, and a high distinction at age 9. Clearly age has an impact..and now at 10 she has to compete against 12 year olds, which seems unfair.
Equally with the maths challenge. She scored one mark less than the 2 winter born kids who were chosen to go to bonus round, which also seems a little unfair. This must surely be a common theme where age is not differentiated in any way?

I don't think this autumn/summer born issue will affect very long, it is normally evened up around Y3.

There's evidence it last well past yr 3:

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/nov/01/birth-month-affects-results-well-being

Researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)...studied three data sets, which represent the records of 48,500 children and teenagers in England. They found children born in August were 20% less likely than their classmates born 11 months earlier. in September, to go to Russell Group universities – the top flight that includes Oxford and Cambridge. They were more likely to study vocational courses instead.

• Children born in August are 20% more likely to study for a vocational qualification than their classmates born in September
• Compared to babies born in September, those born in August exhibit lower socio-emotional development are 2.5 times more likely to report being always unhappy at school
• Those born at the end of the academic year are more likely to have lower confidence in their academic ability and less likely to believe in the power to control their own destiny
• Parents of August-born children provide a 'richer' home learning environment on average compared to parents of September-born children

I don't know if that's imporved in last 10 years though - and I do wonder if more allowance was made in early years that perhaps the effects wouldn't be so long lasting.

Love I don't think this autumn/summer born issue will affect very long, it is normally evened up around Y3.

Actually stats show the autumn/summer issue still exists at GCSE level. Not as pronounced, but still there.

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6686

This is an interesting study which does suggest an effect up to gcses. (Although interestingly I think the full report found little evidence that detrimental effects lasted into adulthood. )

Totally incorrect to say differences are evened out by year 3! For the umpteenth time, this thread is about cognitive function and development over time. There is absolutely no question that there is a clear and marked correlation with children’s year & month of age. Educational Psychology assessment very much recognises this fact, and they do not stop differentiating by year 3. Why do you think 11+ standardisations take this into effect in year 6??

To be honest , I wouldn't read much on these sort of research. There are far too many factors behind this results.

If you look at the countries, where children start school around 6 or 7, there certainly are no performance gap between autumn and summer born children.

However, in UK, school starts at 4 years old while there are development difference between autumn and summer born children. It is a disadvantage being a summer born. If with good support, summer born children catch up quickly, by Y3, I don't think summer born still is at disadvantage. But unfortunately, for some summer born, without right support, the initial gap stays on, that's the reason you still see the effect up to GCSE.

I have read speculation that the practise of summer born starting reception after Christmas or Easter terms stopping might affect this gap though I've not seen anyy reasearch on it yet.

So yes I do think there are possibly things intrenching the disparity in UK education systems however I do think ignoring the statistical evidence of an effect is very dismissive.

English Lit is now frequently being sat in year 10 – it’s common in Wales but apparently happening in England as well.

I do think that is disadvantaging many especially younger in year students as that extra time for emotional maturity and life experience that can be brought to analysis texts isn’t happening.

Obviously, I care as my children are summer born and statistics – rather than peoples opinions already show they are at a disadvantage – but if people instantly dismiss evidence that already exits arguing against further disadvantaging is harder.

I’ve seen similar dismissal of evidence early exams disadvantage pupils – people speak about children who did them early and did fine or come up with “reasons” or cite other factors.

Loveautumnsky that's not true.

Being the youngest in the year presents the same disadvantage whatever age you start school. It doesn't matter how much support you have at home; the evidence is very clear on this.

It's the reason that ed psyche tests are graded to the month of chronological age.

There is much cross-purpose conversation going on here. Same general theme, but different aspects of it.
From a purely cognitive function perspective; there is without any need to explain further..a categorical correlation with chronological age..which comes down to month level, when assessing children.
From a general educational perspective, and how a child fares at the end of their school life...there are a whole myriad of factors involved. Parental input, financial resources, the school they attend, their focus and drive...their health or other peripheral factors...I could go on and on. But that is beyond the central point of this thread, which was to suggest, that when running competitions that are purely based on logic..then a summer born is without question, at a disadvantage. No matter how bright they already are.

There are numerous research about the disadvantages from a poorer background, maybe 11+ and GCSE should be adjusted by family income?

heymissy I'm not saying the issue doesn't exist, but what I am saying is that at GCSE (which I accept that the OP is not talking about) it is just one of many factors, and I don't think it would be acceptable to adjust GCSE results to take account of it.

But your DC who are summer born are not necessarily disadvantaged. I do see that everyone's examples do not disprove the statistics; equally your DC are not statistics, they are individual children and I am sure if you give them support they will do well; many posts on this thread show that it is perfectly possible for summer born DC to do well.

I am strongly against anyone doing English lit early, and in fact would be surprised if it happened often; schools are encouraged to do exams all together and yes, two tpyears is a lot better than one to study four challenging texts..

Still going on, OP? So, how do you explain that your DD's logic ability may be far better than that of a child who is the same age as her, but not as good as her? Do you say its just bad luck for them that they aren't clever like her?

Children who are good at maths are generally advanced with logic too. If she gets 1 mark/few marks less than a child who is a few months older than her, maybe that's her limit. She may do better next time. You can't make excuses for every defeat she makes all her life.

@sunflowerfield Your comment is completely illogical. Yes of course OP's child did better than an older child because she has better maths ability. The maths challenge is a test of maths ability so it is completely expected that a child with better maths ability will have an advantage over one who is less lucky in that way. It is not a test of which birth month you were born in so that aspect is unfair. The whole point of the maths challenge is to identify children with exceptional maths ability and give them the opportunity to be stretched that won't be available in the class room. It would be unfair that based on birth month a child should miss out on that opportunity. The OP is making excuses for a defeat she's suggesting there should be scaling which accounts for the age disadvantage. The way the scaling works naturally takes into account age so if there is no disadvantage there will be no scaling.

heymissy I'm not saying the issue doesn't exist, but what I am saying is that at GCSE (which I accept that the OP is not talking about) it is just one of many factors, and I don't think it would be acceptable to adjust GCSE results to take account of it.

What a ridiculous comment. Of course there are lots of factors that affect GCSE performance however a candidate born in August will underperform compared to an identical candidate born in September and there is a simple way to account for this. The researchers have recommended that this be carried out. There is no logical argument against it.

Of course it is still possible for a summer born, it's possible for people to overcome far bigger disadvantages but where the chance exists to narrow the disadvantages we should of course take that chance. If your child was offered a rubbish failing primary school and you were told "well lots of kids do well despite the fact their school is rubbish" I doubt you'd accept it. Being summer born isn't the worst disadvantage but it is significant and where we can narrow the gap with very little expense or trouble we should of course take up that chance. It already happens very successfully at 11+ (and many other standardised tests). If your child ever takes an IQ test as part of an Ed Pysch assessment their exact birth month is used to generate the result as it is so significant.

At present, a lot of resources get spent not only on winter-born kids but also on kids who hit their growth spurt early. They may not be particularly talented and their advantage will fade out as they reach adulthood, but because they are temporarily at an advantage compared to the other kids, sporting organizations put time and energy into training them and give them places on teams etc.

Back in the days when kids spent less time in age-stratified sports organized by adults and more time having informal kickabouts in the park, it did not much matter if you were a late bloomer or born in the summer, because kids were all playing as part of a big mixed group with all ages and sizes on display, and the inevitable "comparisons" didn't creep in.

At present, a lot of resources get spent not only on winter-born kids but also on kids who hit their growth spurt early. They may not be particularly talented and their advantage will fade out as they reach adulthood,

This was my husband. In early secondary he spent two years as the star sportsman. He could throw the shot put the furthest despite, according to him, awful technique. He was also the rugby star! Constantly picked for the team. Suddenly at 14 when other boys hit puberty and bulked out he became mediocre again.

CripsSandwiches, sorry, I don't actually get your point. I am a bit dim at English comp since it's not my native language.
What I was trying to say was that OP sounds a bit pathetic for keep going on about trying to make excuse for her dd getting fewer mark than the children who are few months older than her, when she has better than age expected ability herself. If it was me, I would tell my dc to not to dwell on one defeat but encourage to move on for next challenge.

I know that when the football associations started promoting futsal rather than full-on, full-scale football for kids, they said that futsal was better training for kids because they got to spend more time with the ball and so on. But I wonder if part of the futsal "advantage" was actually the advantage that is enjoyed by countries whose kids spent more of their childhoods playing in mixed-age groups, meaning that by the time the older boys were old enough to attract the attention of professional football teams, the outstanding ones were the ones who were truly talented rather than the ones who had just been good for their year group for a few years. Boys who were not especially big for their age to begin with would keep on playing rather than become disheartened and give up, and some of them might turn out to be terrific players.

For sport you could do something in primary schools and primary competitions where picking 'the best team' and 'winning' were not as well rewarded.

Problem is that if you do this, you will have the Daily Mail types moaning on about WHY ARE WE REFUSING TO LET CHILDREN TAKE PART IN PROPER OLD FASHIONED COMPETITION! WE ARE RAISING A GENERATION OF SNOWFLAKES! WHY CAN'T WE MAKE EVERYTHING COMPETITIVE LIKE THE GOOD OLD DAYS??

(which is ironic, because as I mentioned above, a major change of the last 50 years is that children have steadily lost opportunities to play casual and fun, disorganized sports on their own terms, and have instead been increasingly herded into adult-led, age-stratified sport with formal scores and leagues)

sunflower, OP isn't 'making excuses' or encouraging her dd from 'dwelling one one defeat'.

She's pointing out that in education systems where the academic year starts in autumn, winter born children have an advantage in any snap-shot competition (ie which measures the top scoring children at a particular point in time). This is a broad, statistical measure; it's not saying that every winter born child will do better than every summer born child (obviously).

OP is pointing out - correctly - that there is no way of overcoming the associated disadvantage for summer born children as they cannot alter their date of birth. This winter born advantage in education, sport etc is a fact well-documented in research - it's not an 'excuse'.

OP has clearly said that it's not a big deal to her, but it is to her daughter. It has knocked her confidence, self-esteem and motivation to enter the next competition.

This is the phenomenon that "Minieggaddiction* describes. Children that are 'good' at something at a certain age are often rewarded (eg being chosen for teams) so have more training/practice and develop a perception of themselves as 'good' at something. So they keep on trying, which gives them the possibility of being successful.

Children who aren't rewarded (eg don't get chosen) don't have the opportunity to enter the competition, so don't have the training/practice that those selected have and develop a perception of themselves as 'not good enough' at something. So they lose confidence, stop compete thus don't have the same possibilities to be successful.

There is plenty of research about this - look up growth mindset.

Koheshi123 yes, the research shows that ALL children, including those who are good at sport, participate more and for longer through their childhood is the emphasis isn't on competition.

Of course there should be opportunities to compete for children who want to, but this shouldn't be the primary focus on childhood physical exercise.

When the head of my dc's school came in, she decided to select a handful of children for lots of extra coaching primarily so that she could have the reflected glory of coming top of some inter-school sports league. There are about 25 of them chosen out of KS2, so out of approx 240 children.

Now, guess which children have got better at sport and are up for giving anything a go, and which ones think of themselves as 'not good' at sport?

My dd was selected for competitions without even having to do trials - she didn't do many because she found all the pressure too much. She's also not particularly competitive, but just enjoys physical activity. This was not well received. This put her off any sort of organised sport for along time.

My ds wasn't selected, despite having represented the school at one of the sports. Although he's not bothered, it's notable that he's lost interest in the particular sport that he used to be fantastic at and love.

It hasn't done either of them any good, nor the vast majority of children. I have tried to have a number of conversations with the head about it, but she can't see beyond the fact that she wants her school to top the league.

It's no skin off my nose - my children do plenty out of school. But for many, school is the place where people develop their perception of themselves as someone who likes or dislikes sport, or someone who is good at or not good at sport which will influence their health, well-being and social confidence throughout their life.

thehorseandhisboy, as a parent, isn't it our job to help children overcome defeat and unfairness? There is so many that will happen in our lives. Most of us try to encourage them to just shrug and move on. And I am perfectly aware of growth mindset. I think stuck on unfairness of age cut off is opposite of it, don't you think? There are many people who falls into this category, and what can we do about it? And there are even more unfairness in life too.
Op's dd does not suffer disadvantage of being a summer born, at least for academic ability, as statistic suggests.

@sunflowerfield ‘still going on, OP?’

Thank you Crips. Completely illogical..and unnecessary. At least there are some contributions which clearly do reflect an understanding of the topic, and are not resorting to derogatory remarks or nonsensical extrapolations.

While this particular post was in relation to one specific aspect of ‘direct disadvantage’ which in cognitive terms is both measurable and justifiable, there are of course innumerable other disadvantages, both direct and indirect, that are less measurable and more difficult to redress, and were not addressed in my original post. Interesting comments however, and certainly food for thought.
In terms of cognitive type assessments alone, an EP would be tabling scores by precise year & month, so in that sense, I don’t see why organisations such as PMC, cannot reflect some small aspect of this, but perhaps that is just not feasible..in any case, it was just a thought.

@sunflowerfield
‘Op's dd does not suffer disadvantage of being a summer born, at least for academic ability, as statistic suggests’
You really don’t seem to understand this topic, as that is a completely nonsensical remark in terms of what we are discussing. Yes a summer born child like my own, can be very able and have a high IQ. But you can not have a direct cognitive comparison, with an older child of the same IQ. And that I’m afraid, is fact!

No sunflower unfairness of snap shot competitions with no age differential (which is not how IQ tests are administered, nor the 11+ as this differential can be calculated to a calendar month) doesn't encourage growth mindset in those young for their year.

There is little point in thinking "I didn't get chosen...yet" when the 'yet' has either passed (ie the selections have been made) or will never come ie they will never not be the youngest.

Of course parents encourage their children to take the rough with the smooth, to keep trying, do their best etc. That isn't what OP is talking about at all.

"You really don’t seem to understand this topic"
Of curse I don't. I have a gifted sister who has been top of the year group all her life despite being born right before age cut off, and I have a gifted dc who is way ahead in certain subject, who excels in logic who isn't a summer born but not Autumn born either.