Summer-born pupils 'should have exam scores boosted'
Thomas007
Posts: 14,309 Forum Member
✭✭
Summer-born children should have their exam marks boosted to compensate for being almost a year younger when they sit tests, a report argues.
In England, pupils born in August are less likely to get good GCSEs or go to university than those born in September, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says.
Some may even drop out of school.
The age-adjusted scores should be used to calculate school league table positions, the authors argue.
The report draws on an array of official data, including the National Pupil Database, which contains details of every pupil in England.
Pupils born in August are 6.4 percentage points less likely than September-born pupils to achieve five GCSEs at grades A* to C, the study finds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22469216
I'm not sure about this to be honest. I'm august 4th myself, regardless of when you are born you still receive the same quality education as everyone else, i.e. over the same timeframe 12 years.
When I think it does have an effect is usually in the early stages of education, ages 4-7 primary school.
I literally started school a month after my 4th birthday, somebody turning 5 in september would have 20% more development time than me, which is extremely significant then.
But by the time you get to 15, 16 does it really matter? Clearly the report says otherwise, us august born are 6.4% less likely to get 5 A*-C grades than those born in september.
Should those born in the summer get exam grades boosted? And if not? Why do those born in the summer fail more readily than those born in the autumn?
0
Comments
I was born in June, but I don't think the lack of being given a 10 point start, or whatever, affected my academic achievements.
I tend to agree with you. I think it does make a significant difference in primary, especially for infants. (I know not all but I think the majority do find it hard when they start school after only just turning four compared with their peers).
Perhaps rather than boosting grades classes should be divided and taught by stage rather than age in the earlier years. Or...simple solution - the september borns sit their exams in January and the youngers sit theirs in summer!
I totally agree that there needs to be something done, those early years DO affect your learning later in life. As I've said on here many times, I'm incredibly dyslexic, and I'm sure thats got a lot to do with my early years teaching, not only am I a late august baby, but I wasn't taught in phonics. I was behind the rest of the class and largely ignored. Now thats not caused my dyslexia but does compound my difficulties.
My son is also a late august baby, and the difference in his advances compared to his best friend who is a year older (early sept) is amazing, he just doesn't grasp learning as quickly as his friend, I do wonder if I should of kept him home a year extra.
What you get when you let politicians dabble in education.
He did okay but I do think he would've done better had he gone into the lower year. Maybe a more flexible system as far as admissions is the answer, with parents having more choice as far as starting dates/appropriate years for their child. Most know best whether their child is mature and/or academic, and it would possibly be a fairer way all round.
That is definitely the answer especially for boys. I live in a rural area and a lot of the local schools have this flexibility and it works out well for a friends August born son.
Why won't people just admit that some people are good at stuff and others are bad?
It's just ADHD all over again.
Everything you have said sums it up for me.
My boys started at 4, just weeks after their 4th birthday, I wanted to defer for another year, but I was told, in fact they insisted, that my children were ready for school.
So, off they went, they are now year 3 and are still behind the other children academically! I don't think they should have started until they were 5, but hey ho, they are there now, they have made friends, to hold them back a year at this point would be a) extremely unfair, and b) lead to ridicule.
They are catching up, but very very slowly, and they struggle a lot. It's lead to major confidence issues as they know they are behind the rest of their classes, they feel 'stupid' which they are not by any means.
It doesn't help that they had a pretty major speech delay, which still affects them albeit minor now. And it really didn't help that twin 1 had an awful teacher in year 1 who never remembered the fact he was almost a whole year younger than the rest of his class and had speech issues.
We have issues now with one twin feeling more stupid than his own brother
But I digress, in short I don't think that summer born children should have their exam scores boosted, but I think the class dynamic needs to change, everyone in the class needs to be the same age as much as possible. One boy in one of my boys classes is 11 1/2 months older than mine! I don't think there should be such a hefty age gap to be honest.
With a September birthday I was always the oldest in my year as is one of my kids, now. At Infants school, they did somehow put me in the year above where I was very happy, but then at some point I had to have a lag, and stay behind and join my 'real' year. Cos I was a bright kid and nearly a year older than some of them, it was the most boring thing on earth, going back in with the kids I was meant to be with and one reason I became a school refuser later on - as the work was too boring.
What a fantastic blanket statement!
It's nothing to do with making excuses for failing, it's about helping those who struggle to keep up with classmates a year older to succeed!
It's all about finding ways to encourage children, to give them a better chance at education.
Perhaps the reason for so many failing students, who give up on education in later years, can be solved with simplicity, meaning more children stay in school.
It is not nice to feel like you are stupid in comparison to every one else in your year.
As a parent, it is horrid to watch your child struggle with the peer group they have when you are pretty sure they would do much better if they had started school just one year later.
It is.
I think that makes more sense than artificially bumping up grades.
i was thinking more of 15-16 year olds.
Some people are just stupid though, but as a society we're not allowed to admit it.
Some people just can't be arsed either and will blame everything from their date of birth to the colour of the sky for their failings.
We just make too many excuses for them imo.
My son was born on the 8th of August and was the youngest in his class by nearly a whole year, he's done well and he didn't feel the need for excuses.
My sons friend is now 8 . He stayed in Nursery until the summer he turned 5 and joined reception that September. He continued to stay a year behind. until he joined his "real" classmates in Year 3 and is doing very well.
She thinks it was the best thing she could have done for him as she did not think he was ready
It's small school, only about 70 pupils and I think that this what made the transition so easy. Each couple of year groups shared a classroom so he really was just in the "other group".
Yeah it does appear to be different up here, my birthday was in November so I started school when I was 4 in August, just before I turned 5 It seems more popular now if your child is born just before the cut off point, you can have the option of starting them a year later at 5.
I don't think it makes much difference in that case academically though, I never felt too young at primary, and I was above average in my achievements.
I think starting primary school as you turn 4 is a too soon though, if that is the case, you are just out of toddler stages really..I did not realise the age cut off was quite different down south to be honest.
I wonder if the same people would say the same thing about children in nursery...should a 18 month old's development be the same as the 3 year old he is playing with and getting the same attention as? Is a 2 year old showing signs of failure because their speech and fine motor skills are not the same as a 3 year old even though they sit at the same table, use the same pencils and are given the same instructions?