A question of logic

As study after study has shown, children born in the summer can be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to educational attainment. The latest statistics from the Department for Education (DfE) show that 71 per cent of children born in the autumn term had reached a 'good level of development' by the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage
(EYFS), compared to 49 per cent of those born in the summer months.

Simple logic explains why this gap persists: these children are different ages. Some children start Reception just before their fifth birthday, while others have only just turned four. At such a young age, when they develop so quickly, the gap is especially pronounced.

Children who are summer-born are disadvantaged in another way: they typically receive less early years funding than their autumn-born counterparts. A child born in the autumn term is entitled to a year and two terms of early years funding before starting in a Reception class. If a summer-born child starts Reception in September, he or she may have only received early years funding for one year. Many parents do not realise that their summer-born child can stay in an early years setting until the statutory school starting age, if they wish. Even fewer parents realise that if they make this choice they should continue to receive their 15-hours free entitlement. Nick Gibb has promised to look into why so many parents are told that their summer-born child must start in Year 1 rather than in Reception.

At this time of year, early years settings will be thinking carefully about how best to support the transition of their children into primary schools. This transition can prove particularly tricky for the summer-born children, because they are still so young. Ofsted and the DfE seem convinced that the solution is to get children to be 'school ready', but surely what we really need to do is ensure that schools are ready for them. When less than half of summer-born children reach a 'good level of development' at the end of the EYFS, we should ask ourselves what seems a very obvious question: could it be the notion of a one-size-fits-all 'level of development' that is at fault, and not those four-year-old children?