Children born in July and August: a study on the age regulation in primary school and student’s education access and development

Abstract

This paper discusses at the microlevel the educational inequality resulting from the cutoff birthdate regulation in the current primary school admission system. According to our research, among the students who enroll in school, students born in July and August display a relative disadvantage and adaptive difficulties in the construction of self-identity and study ability when compared with those born in September and October. Students born between November and June in the following year have mid-level performance. Moreover, this effect is accumulative. With regard to acquiring educational resources, students born in July and August show the lowest possibility of getting into the key senior middle schools, 16.7-22. 8 % lower than the rest of the student population, while the possibility of being admitted to vocational school is the highest, 54.2-60.8 % higher than the others. This disadvantage is more prominent among male students. Our study also shows that the above effect is very strong and cannot be effectively suppressed by the socioeconomic factors. The "July/August pitfall" appears to be insurmountable.

Does the school cutoff date cause the disadvantage for children born in July and August?

“…They found that high school students born in July and August, being the youngest students given the enrollment cutoff date in August, had more academic problems, lower levels of self-confidence, and greater likelihood of being addicted to internet games. As a result, July-August-born students were found to be less likely to be admitted to key high schools when compared to September-October-born students, the oldest group at the time of initial school entry, having been born in the months immediately after the cutoff date (Liu and Li 2015).…”

“…The exact enrollment cutoff date, however, is somewhat arbitrarily chosen, imposing uniform school-entry timing even when young children of the same age may vary in school readiness, leading to academic advantages or disadvantages for children born in different months (Bedard and Dhuey 2006;Dhuey and Lipscomb 2010;McEwan and Shapiro 2008;Mühlenweg and Puhani 2010). In a recently published article entitled "Children Born in July and August: A Study on the Age Regulation of Primary School Admission and Student's Education Access and Development," Liu and Li (2015) reported how birth months, thought to be randomly distributed, affected the academic performances of adolescents due to the rule of minimum age and enrollment cutoff date specified by the Compulsory Education Law in China. They found that high school students born in July and August, being the youngest students given the enrollment cutoff date in August, had more academic problems, lower levels of self-confidence, and greater likelihood of being addicted to internet games.…”

Relative age effect on European adolescents’ social network

“…The policy of grouping students born up to one year apart in the same class, based on an arbitrary cutoff date, is widespread in OECD countries but costly in terms of human capital formation. Indeed, scholars have shown that the youngest pupils in a class are more likely to suffer from grade retention, to be assigned to remedial classes, to receive lower grades, to be retained, and to skip lessons (Peña, 2016;Liu & Li, 2016;Navarro et al, 2015;Ponzo & Scoppa, 2014;Sprietsma, 2010;Elder & Lubotsky, 2009;Bedard & Dhuey, 2006). These performance gaps are also known as relative age effects (RAEs;Allen & Barnsley, 1993).…”

“…Fourth, lower performance may lead to low self-esteem, and thus to limiting communication with peers (Liu & Li, 2016;Thompson et al, 2004). Fifth, these adverse situations may cause depression, which is another factor commonly associated with loneliness and thus fewer social contacts (Matthews et al, 2016).…”

“…Fifth, these adverse situations may cause depression, which is another factor commonly associated with loneliness and thus fewer social contacts (Matthews et al, 2016). These phenomena are known to be more of a struggle for relatively young students (Liu & Li, 2016;Patalay et al, 2015;Schwandt & Wuppermann, 2016). Therefore, based on this background, it is natural to suspect that, ceteris paribus, relatively young students have a weaker social network.…”