Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

Agree archery annie.

And my child got into a faith school and we are not religious but as it now rapidly improving apparently faith will be more important with admissions criteria.

Totally agree Petal.

petalunicorn

We are certainly not caring about 'our own child'. If this was the case, those of us whose children have already secured a compulsory school age start in Reception wouldn't keep voicing our concerns about all the other parents who are being refused this opportunity because of a postcode lottery.

As for campaigning for a later formal education start date more generally, this is going on via a number of other organisations. But as it CURENTLY stands, we already HAVE a choice of start dates for summer born children - the problem is that so many people (teachers, head teachers and admissions administrators included) simply did/do not know the facts.

Compulsory school age is the term following a child's 5th birthday - whether people agree with this or not; it's the law.

General

The MNHQ question asked about 'thoughts on the current systems for allocating primary places', and parents of summer born children maintain that the system for summer born admissions is unfair and inconsistently applied. This is a relatively recent issue as it's only just becoming wider knowledge that flexibility exists.

Nevertheless, the cat is out of the bag on compulsory school age now, and until researchers produce evidence that demonstrates it is in our children's best interests to miss a whole year of school (and Warwick University researchers recently said this would be not be credible: 'We obviously could not delay children starting school for the experiment...'), we will continue to challenge an admissions process that arbitrarily places summer born children in Year 1 (or makes them leapfrog a year later on) as a penalty for not going along with what's become 'the norm' - i.e. enrolling children in school early.

It is for MNHQ to decide whether this is an important issue, but we already know that a number of journalists and MPs are taking it very seriously indeed.

A note for all the people campaigning on summer born start dates as an issue - I am open to persuasion to some extent on this but you come across as only caring about your own child and sod anyone else. If you genuinely want to lobby to influence policy rather than being concerned about your own particular circumstances then you need to modify your messages.

FWIW I think you will have far more success campaigning on a later start date for formal school for all in line with other countries then you will on getting a choice for of start dates for summer borns only.

We were very lucky when we moved mid-term with DD (year 1). Our local (Ofsted 'good' rated) primary which isn't our catchment school had recently gone to three form entry, so they're rolling in places. In fact DD is in a class of just 20 children.

However, had that not been the case, we might have really struggled to get a place and I had already decided to become a SAHM in case I needed to home school before a local place became available. DH has the car for work, so I have to be able to walk DD to school, it's no good if the LA offered us a place across town.

ArcheryAnnie- when I was referring to not believing children were less deserving I was actually responding to a question that Jassy had asked me.

Then how can you support a selection system that treats them as if they are?

By supporting faith selections, you are saying you think people of the 'right' religion/congregation should have priority over others in accessing local education. There is no other way of viewing it. For you, a discriminatory system is convenient and beneficial. For others, including Catholics in other areas, it is the opposite.

there would be no point in sending your child to a faith school if you had no intention of following the faith.

Well, apart from getting your child into a local school, where faith schools are the only or main options, especially where community schools aren't an option because faith schools have shrunk their catchments to nonsense levels. Plenty of (predominantly MC) parents see a point in that.

ArcheryAnnie- when I was referring to not believing children were less deserving I was actually responding to a question that Jassy had asked me.

Tedtess round us all the communion stuff is done in school. I am not a regular church goer but do go intermittently. There are rarely more than 4 or 5 families in church. Even for the Xmas Carol service. I know lots of the RC families and they admit they never go as they are too busy etc

I decided to give my children a faith eduction as is my right to do so.

I am fully supportive of your right to do so, Sweetie - as long as you pay for it yourself. I am sick of paying for faith-based schools that my own child is not allowed to access.

It doesn't make me think another child is less deserving of an education.

What you think is irrelevant. The practical result of the current faith schools is that other children are treated as though less deserving of an education.

RC? not so sure about that... the holy communion prep lasts a year at age 7 so if they do disappear they soon are back.

" decided to give my children a faith eduction as is my right to do so. "

But we are arguing that it shouldn't be a right, at least not a state funded right.

And indeed it is not a right; many Catholics or Sikhs or whatever cannot access such schools.

But sweetie millions do. That's why at my local CofE and RC the pews are rammed with dedicated parents of toddlers who all seem to evaporate at age 4

Jassy still don't really what you are driving at, I don't think anyone is less deserving of an education. I, personally, did not decide to build Catholic Schools, they were built many years before my time. I decided to give my children a faith eduction as is my right to do so. It doesn't make me think another child is less deserving of an education.
Just to add I do not agree with people telling anyone they should "just go to church for two years to get your child into a school" there would be no point in sending your child to a faith school if you had no intention of following the faith.

Although the sibling rule is unfair on some, I would support it since it does actually make sense from an ecological and pragmatic point of view, and most people will be affected by it with their eldest child anyway.

If you are getting into the realms of forcing organisations to sell their land against their will for no net benefit to the community as a whole (i.e. no extra school spaces) just to tackle an admissions or an admin issue then it is all getting a bit speculative for me. I don't see that ever happening.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that, tiggy - that was Sweetie saying that if state funding was withdrawn from faith schools who refused to stop faith-based allocation, then the Catholic church would as a result shut all their schools in a huff.

That's not what I would want at all - I just want all state schools open to all children without discrimination based on faith. It wouldn't require much effort at all.

Sorry I meant I don't want RC as not RC church goer etc. it is actually also full of pushy white MC parents. I know for a fact that few of the kids attend mass post 5

The governing body employs the staff and can apply a religious test in appointing, remunerating and promoting all teachers.

This does imply that religious discrimination can indeed impact on an employee's career and salary once appointed.

Jazz that's the point. My nearest is a CofE which we are not eligible for (2 year attendance weekly) and RC (I don't want). I walk past 2 to get to ours

So faith schools can discriminate on remuneration depending on a teacher's faith?

I can understand, though I disagree with, the logic of allowing it as an employment criteria but once a school has decided to employ someone, surely no further discrimination should be allowed?

I also don't understand how people get their kids to school if they havnt been allocated based on sibling

You wouldn't need to force the churches to sell land against their will, just legislate to outlaw faith-based discrimination in admissions and employment in schools.

This would bring schools in line with every other business and public service in the country.

I think it's ridiculous and people should just go to the school that's closest to them unless there's a v good reason not to.