sats -defining summer born

[Jessicabrassica]

DS is now year 3 and I've managed to access last year's ks1 sats results. . Since the results aren't publicly available and I wasn't supposed to see them, I can't ask school for clarification.
Can anyone tell me how summer born is defined? The results note that the cohort has 3 summer born children. They are a young year group and without a class list I can name 8 children who were 6 when they sat the exams (birthdays after June), and 3 are born in the last week of august. I think there are more Summer born kids that I've forgotten, too. I'm curious to know if the 3 summer born kids is wrong or if the definition of summer is very narrow.

Many thanks

I've always assumed June July august but that doesn't tally with your info

Possibly your list is for another year ?

In terms of arrangements for starting school, summer born is defined as 1st April to 31st August - see link. I have no idea if there is a different definition when looking at SATs results, or even whether there is any formal definition at all. Odd that the figures you have don't match what you know, though - it looks like they are just counting the August children, but that might just be the specific school's approach. When you say "the results note that the cohort has 3 summer born children]] - whose notes? The school's?

Van I ask why it matters? Only on MN have I ever heard this term! I have a 9yo DD, so called summer born so just turned 4 when she went to school, it's had no negative impact on her at all, nor on and friends DC who started at 4 not 5?

I always thought the 3 months, too nice. It's definitely the right year group. You'd think it would be reasonable to define summer born as those children sitting tests for 7yos whilst not being 7.

I think it must just be a mistake. It doesn't much matter in the scheme of things but it's a shame it can't be corrected because , having not officially seen the results I can't point it out!

If you think about it then it really matters quite a lot.....my DD will be just 4 when she starts school and my friends DD will be 5 just after she starts school! 12 months developmentally is a BIG difference at that stage. At this point I have no concerns for my DD as she is a bright button and I am a teacher. But I do think it makes a difference (especially in boys)

Hassled, using that definition it would include nearly half the class!!!! It just struck me as odd given they are a very young year group with a skewed distribution of birthdays. And yes, notes were from the head.

Freak, it doesn't matter hugely but if the school is going to comment on summer born kids then it's helpful to know why they only include kids born after 25 august!!

Also when the class is young, and dominated by boys (60:40) managing behaviour is more of an issue.

A boy heavy class does not necessarily mean that managing behaviour is more of an issue, what a ridiculous statement. It all depends on the personalities of ALL the children in the class, not based on gender, not all boys are the same.

I disagree with the boy heavy comment - boys are much easier to manage that girls (IMO). I've got a girl heavy class this year (for the first time in a long time) and it's been awful!! Falling out in lumps

I have a 9yo DD, so called summer born so just turned 4 when she went to school, it's had no negative impact on her at all, nor on and friends DC who started at 4 not 5?

I have two summer-born girls. Yes, they're doing fine. They're achieving at appropriate levels for their age. But... if they had started school a year later, with an extra year of nursery, that could only have been a good thing. If we could choose (without financial constraints etc) between our own children starting school at 5 as one of the oldest, or at 4 as one of the youngest, what would the split be?

I met someone once who was researching the impact of being summer born - apparently professional footballers and athletes are more likely to be Autumn born, because when they start school they're bigger and stronger than their peers, and so succeed, and so are encouraged to pursue sports. Even when their peers catch up physically, that early sense of being "good at sports" and the effort they put in as a result of the early encouragement doesn't go away. It's interesting stuff. Academically there's meant to be an overall difference in attainment all the way up to GCSEs (usual exceptions etc).

hassled You need to read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.

I think it gives a real argument for not picking primary sports teams based on who is 'the best' so that those 11 months younger get a chance too.

Thank you - will do. I've just read a couple of summaries and it looks fascinating.

From experience there is a difference between summer borns and autumn borns. There are exceptions of course.

Trouble is, whatever rules are put in place there are always going to be children who are the youngest.

Allowing children to start later just means the gap between the youngest and eldest (& any advantage that goes along with that) becomes even bigger.

Sorry, that didn't answer your question at all.

This: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182664/DFE-RR017.pdf suggests

"Summer-born is defined as births during May-August inclusive; Spring-born as births during
January-April; and Autumn-born as births during September-December."

which is the same as we used in the last school I worked at.