The issue of summer-born children and their often-challenging path through the schools system is a long-standing debate in education.
Children usually start school in the September after they turn 4, but many parents of summer-born children ask to delay entry to reception for a year. However, the problems begin when local authorities and schools force these children to go straight into year 1, skipping reception, when they do begin school. There is all manner of research showing that the achievement and attainment of these children suffers as they are forced to learn alongside much older (relatively) children.
The impact stretches, believe it or not, all the way to GCSE examinations. One study in 2013 found that a child born in August is 6.4 per cent less likely to get five GCSEs at A* to C than one born in September. The report, from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, said the problem was purely down to the organisation of the education system, meaning that children born in the summer start school aged up to a year younger than their peers and as a result are tested at a younger age.
However, it also found that August-born children are 5.4 per cent more likely to have SEN and two per cent less likely to go to university. They are also more likely to exhibit “significantly poorer” socio-emotional development, have “significantly lower” confidence in their own ability, and engage in risky behaviours such as underage smoking.
In light of this, action by the government this week aimed at preventing this common admissions practice is welcome. Schools minister Nick Gibb has said that admissions rules must be changed so children born between April 1 and August 31 cannot be forced to go straight into year 1 if they wait to start school until they turn 5.
The government is planning legal changes in this area and is to consult before putting its plans before Parliament for approval. However, Mr Gibb has written to schools and local authorities urging them to take action now, ahead of any changes, and allow summer-born children to start in reception aged 5 if that is what parents want. Well done to ministers for acting on this.
The next step, perhaps, is to open up the debate further. Questions are rarely raised in education over our fixation with year groupings and the fact that progress through school based on age is so central to our education system. There is no real evidence proving that this is the best way of doing things. It’s just the easiest way to organise our schools and it is the way we have always done things.
Rightly, the debate about assessment and examination has moved on in recent years to focus on progress, rather than black and white boundaries of pass and fail, but we still discuss this issue within the framework of age expectations. Surely more discussion is needed about the “this child is 13 and so they should be able to do this, this and that” approach that still, at the end of the day, lies at the heart of British education.
Teachers and school leaders are experts in learning – they know when children are ready to move on to the next stage of their education and they educate their pupils accordingly. They also know that we cannot presume to judge what a child should know and be able to achieve by age alone.
With our new focus on evidence in education, we should not be afraid of questioning some of the very basic structures that seem to only still be with us because “things have always been like this”.
Let’s take another example: SecEd last week reported on suggestions from researchers for later starts to the school day because biological changes in teenagers’ sleep patterns mean that early starts could be damaging their wellbeing and performance (Sleep research urges 10am start for GCSE students, SecEd 422, September 10, 2015).
Typically, the radio call-in shows and various other commentaries on this were dismissive and narrow-minded. The generally theme being, “it never did me any harm”. This is another example of “things have always been like this” and therefore we do not question the norm.
A pilot is being conducted, and the findings will fascinate me. It will be interesting to see the reaction if we find that attainment and achievement rise as a result of later school starts.
In this new era of evidence-led practice, it’s not just the day-to-day changes that we need to base on evidence of what works – it’s our entire approach to education. If “things have always been like this”, we need to make sure that we ask: “Why?”
- Pete Henshaw is the editor of SecEd and has been writing about secondary education for more than 10 years. Email editor@sec-ed.co.uk and follow him on Twitter @pwhenshaw