Stephen Gorard opinionates in NewScientist (17 October 2015, paywall) about the problems of entering the world in September, at least in the UK:
ARE you an August or a September baby? This is a vexed question for parents; whether their children are born at the end or start of the UK school year can be crucial when it comes to performance at school.
The gap between these groups is substantial throughout primary and early secondary education. Attainment, self-esteem and the chances of being selected for sports teams or university are lower for children born in the UK summer, all other things being equal.
Figures suggest the attainment gap may be widest in the early years. In England, 49 per cent of summer-born children who start school in September having just turned 4 achieve a “good level of development” in their first year, compared with 71 per cent of autumn-born pupils, who are nearly five when they start.
In terms of numbers reaching the “expected” levels of writing, reading and maths, the gap is around 8 per cent from ages 5 to seven and drops very little from ages 7 to 11. By 15 or 16, around 6 per cent more autumn children gain five or more “good” grades at GCSE, in subjects including English and maths, than their summer peers. This suggests the possibility of different futures for many young people based on birth month.
OK, so there may be a problem. His solution?
There is one solution to much of the problem though: to age-standardise all assessment results. This would mean pupils still sit annual tests or exams at the same time, but with results adjusted for age. These would form the official record for educational decisions by schools, universities, employers, individuals and family.
For the sake of fairness, this is what should be done.
Because … because … why? How does this help when they are out of school, doing work … and finding it’s not up to snuff? Do they then apply to the courts to force the employer to keep promoting them because of the month of their birth? And when that bridge he designed falls down, who gets the blame?
Existence is not about making sure everyone is treated fairly because they bloody well exist, but to attempt to improve the populace on the assumption that an improved populace will make for a more prosperous, safe society; the populace must be treated fairly, but in such a way as to improve society, not just make the members feel better. The former approach is full of unexpected consequences that pique my interest only because of a streak of morbid interest to which I really shouldn’t admit; and while the latter will have some, I don’t fear them nearly as much.
So, I understand it’s on me to make a concrete suggestion, so here it is: abandon the concept of school years. Let’s use science to pick an optimal age for youngsters to start school; as we get better, each kid can be individually evaluated for the perfect beginning age, perhaps (although there’s something to be said for not greasing the skids too liberally). Let’s say it’s 5 years old, and he was born in March. The month of his fifth birthday, he starts school with all the other March kids. They do their school for 9 months or whatever it might be in the UK, take their vacation, rinse and repeat. The problems of differential development is greatly minimized – it’s 31 days or less, rather than something like 11 months. The problem resolved in a stroke!
Perhaps this goes against the grain, as traditionally we group students into full years, celebrate with homecomings (in the US) and anniversaries, and damn these traditions must be much more important than the development of the students. Perhaps this is a measure of how much society cares for its kids – and how much it cares for old, damaging traditions. Rather than fix the problem, they’d rather paper over it with seasonal adjustments … which of course will be the subject of wretched politics, statistical analyses gone incredibly wrong, and windbags taking liberal potshots at the whole sleazy mess. (For those of you wondering if I comprehend irony, please be assured that my spine writhes even as I peck this missive out.)
For the sake of the future of the UK, don’t do this.
