Bucks appeals - Fair, consistent and objective
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: Bucks appeals - Fair, consistent and objective
Sorry that isn't correct - they all start school at the same time these days! The unfairness comes when prematurity isn't taken into account so a child born two months early is treated the same as their chronological age.up to 12 months of learning more than a child born in August
Re: Bucks appeals - Fair, consistent and objective
Such a great post jpk and many points relevant to my DCs case ... thank you for posting x x
Heartmum x x x
Re: Bucks appeals - Fair, consistent and objective
They may all start school these days at the same age, but younger children could have missed out on nearly a year of pre-school compared to their older friends in the academic year. That is what happened with my younger DD - as a summer-born she had to start school with only a year of pre-school whereas her autumn born friends who were only a few weeks younger had another full year of pre-school before starting reception.Guest55 wrote:Sorry that isn't correct - they all start school at the same time these days! The unfairness comes when prematurity isn't taken into account so a child born two months early is treated the same as their chronological age.up to 12 months of learning more than a child born in August
That extra year of pre-school accounts for a lot in developmental terms in my opinion, not only in maturity, but in vocabulary learning etc. That must have an effect.
Re: Bucks appeals - Fair, consistent and objective
Research data isn't conclusive. It depends on the 'home diet' as well ...
I'd argue prematurity is more of an issue.
I'd argue prematurity is more of an issue.
Re: Bucks appeals - Fair, consistent and objective
Prematurity could be an issue too, but that is only likely to be a difference of an absolute maximum of 2 or 3 months. Of course, if that premature child was born in August, rather than September / October, that could be a big issue.
All the data / evidence, including the report link above, do show the clear connection between month of birth and achievement which narrows over time but persists even beyond A levels. Otherwise, why bother with standardisation by age at all?
Of course home life, level of support from parents, socio-economic background etc count for a great deal and a lot of summer born children outperform their older peers.
I just feel it is more of a struggle for some of them, and certainly for some of the younger boys.
Anyway, sorry this is going off topic as this issue must have been discussed at great length elsewhere on the forum.
All the data / evidence, including the report link above, do show the clear connection between month of birth and achievement which narrows over time but persists even beyond A levels. Otherwise, why bother with standardisation by age at all?
Of course home life, level of support from parents, socio-economic background etc count for a great deal and a lot of summer born children outperform their older peers.
I just feel it is more of a struggle for some of them, and certainly for some of the younger boys.
Anyway, sorry this is going off topic as this issue must have been discussed at great length elsewhere on the forum.