Bets time to have a baby with respect to schooling

dizziblonde

Technically probably September - you CAN tell the difference between the summer and autumn birthdays at the younger end of the school. However THAT then throws up the risk that if they're born prematurely they'll end up with the developmental catch-up to do from that, PLUS being the youngest in the class ahead of theirs as a late-summer birthday so could backfire pretty spectacularly!

Plus few things in life go to plan - after a run of miscarriages and difficulty getting pregnant - the last thing I would have done would be to quibble about when I actually GOT my baby in the end (although if she'd have flipping well stayed put till full-term it would have been nice)!

balletshoes

Torry_Quine wrote: »

That doesn't sound the usual to me. In my experience Feb/March is the cut off so a child born in August would be starting school in the August when they are 5 as the norm. Children born between August but before the end of the February cut-off can start the previous August so 4 and months but still nearer 5 or wait till the next August.

yes, thats my understanding of the Scottish school intake system, that certainly was the case when I went to school, and I've just googled it, it still seems to be the same system - if you're a March birthday you're the oldest in the class, if you're a February birthday you're the youngest.

dizziblonde

Also then you can factor in reception intakes - some areas do all starting in September, some do a Sept/Jan intake and some (not personally worked in one of these) do a Sept/Jan/whenever Easter lands intake.

Basically you'll go nuts trying to plan it out, and the baby won't have read your planning anyway and will do whatever they're going to.

prowla

fluffnutter wrote: »

After you've done your GCSEs, preferably.

I'd say best wait 'til after you've left school.

Janepig

The school my two go to has one intake which is the September after they turn 3 and they all start full time (there's one or two schools locally that do this). It's two form entry so they split the year into (roughly) September to March and April to August, so an August baby would be no more than about five months younger than the eldest in their class. Given that I work (school hours) then for convenience alone an August baby would be preferable as I wouldn't have to pay for childcare for another year as I would if they were born in September. My cousin's little boy is 3 at the end of August 2013 and will be starting at the school afew days later, very handy for her!

You could look at, for instance, DH and BIL, DH born in September, did very well at school, went on to get a degree - his brother, born in June, doesn't have so much as a GCSE to his name. But knowing BIL, I don't think it would have made much difference what month he was born in, he's just [STRIKE]thick[/STRIKE] intellectually challenged :silenced::D.

But as others have said, there are alot of factors at play, and babies don't always arrive when expected.

Jx

fluffnutter

Interestingly, even if you're worried that a summer baby might be academically disadvantaged in its early years, apparently it's likely to be taller and stronger than its winter born compatriots because carrying a baby during the summer months at the end of your pregnancy maximises the amount of vitamin D it gets.

The bigger and stronger your baby the more likely it is to be better at physical stuff like sport and beating all the other babies up. This has many advantages

miss_independent

Torry_Quine wrote: »

That doesn't sound the usual to me. In my experience Feb/March is the cut off so a child born in August would be starting school in the August when they are 5 as the norm. Children born between August but before the end of the February cut-off can start the previous August so 4 and months but still nearer 5 or wait till the next August.

Maybe different LEA or something, but this is what happened to him in the 1990's.

claire16c

If only planning & carrying a baby was that easy!

Tigsteroonie

miss_independent wrote: »

Maybe different LEA or something, but this is what happened to him in the 1990's.

Actually, that's a good point. It's all very well planning around current school intake patterns, but those could well change in the next five years (and probably will, seeing as how they are mucking around with so much else in education!)

julie2710

Well my first son was conceived in 14th February (in a Petri dish/test tube so nothing romantic!:o) born October 27th. Second was conceived similar circumstances on the 14th January born 29th September.

Are they at an academic advantage? I wouldn't say so necessarily as the oldest although very bright is very active, sports as well as dancing. The youngest again is very bright but not really sporting however he's the one who has everyone in stitches.

I was heavily pregnant all through summer though and as I took 6 month and 18 weeks mat leave it meant I was back at work by the time the nicer weather came round again!