Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

I would love for the KS1 curriculum to be changed to a more play based one - an extension of the foundation stage. Give children lots of time to learn and develop through play and investigation. At least then if parents decided to start their summer borns at CSA they would just miss a year of "school" but would still be able to have the foundations set throughout years 1 and 2. (Although parents should be able to 'defer' IMO)

We seem to feel the need to put so much pressure on at a young age and I do think for a lot of children it makes school harder, or more of a chore, than it should be.

My child is a summer born baby and I do not understand why she has to start school at just turned 4?!
She is no way near ready to start and I will do all I can to make sure she can start at 5.
We should be like many countries in Europe where kids flourish at school when they start a lot older! 6-7.

As is age-inappropriate national curriculum induced SEN.

I want to start my August born daugther at compulsory school age but it's looking like my only option is for her to start in year one. I don't see why I should have to do this. Why should she miss a full year of education by starting when she has to? I would be fined if I choose to take her out of school. The system is ridiculous.

I already have a son in school, so I don't have the luxury of choice of which school I apply to, so I have to depend on the views of his headteacher as to whether he will support a 'delay'. My council are unlikely to agree to it without his backing.

The solution that would benefit children more widely would be to make YR and Y1 far less formal and far more flexible in approach and expectations and/or to shift the cut off so the youngest child was at least 4.5.

penguin I would absolutely NOT disagree with you on that matter. In fact, I am the first one to stand next to you in campaigning for that. However, the political reality is that it is not going to happen. When ALL political parties support early formal intervention, making CSA higher won't happen

I am from the country where CSA is from 6.5 yo up to 8 and it is the parents' choice which particular September they decide to send their kid to school. Needless to say, summerborn issue does not exist there.

We were successfully granted our reception class request for our summer born child to start school in reception class at compulsory school age (by two admission authorities, one local authority and one academy).

It was a very stressful, drawn out process.

However, nail-biting wait for offers later this month to see if allocated a place in those preferred schools. If not, then what happens.... a place in any school that will accept a reception class start (more negotiating with little time to do it in), or perhaps any school in the county that has a Y1 place free? The system is a shambles.

oink - Well, they would all do it like a shot even though it's inconvenient if they thought it would guarantee a large number of votes!

Gosh, you have a very rosy view of parental engagement in education.

I am not afraid of anything . I just don't think it's a good idea. I still haven't seen a rationale for it that boils down to anything except "I want the best for my child". Which is absolutely as it should be, but isn't a reason to build public policy. The solution that would benefit children more widely would be to make YR and Y1 far less formal and far more flexible in approach and expectations and/or to shift the cut off so the youngest child was at least 4.5.

As I've mentioned, I was speaking recently to a teacher in Scotland who really dislikes their deferral system. It isn't the children who are most likely to struggle in P1 who are deferring, it's the parents who are educated themselves and highly engaged and want to give their child the benefit of an extra year in pre-school (and the benefit of being the oldest in their year). I have family in an affluent area of Scotland who have said the same thing. It also creates a big spread, especially in a mixed age class. Tehre wouldn't be a magical correlation between the children who would defer and the children who would benefit more from a deferral.

I want to make a point about misinformation adding to stress.

In our authority the admissions helpline is dire and actually told me incorrect facts, as well as being extremely noncommittal, unhelpful and un-reassuring. (We moved during the admissions window with DTs and had to do a late application)

I then realised that there was a School Preference Advisor employed by the council specifically to offer unbiased independent advice. He had advice surgeries and he knew much more about the convoluted rules and also likelihoods nationally and locally. He was able to make calls to specific schools there and then and find out how long he wait list was, how many applications, and make a really good educated guess that we'd probably get the places once the initial applications were announced (we did).

A large part of his job was to advise parents disputing their places or helping SEN and looked after kids get places, but anyone could access the surgeries (they weren't much publicised mind)

More of the latter and less of the former

So we won't change the system whose whole purpose is to serve the children, but is failing a substantial proportion of them, because it will be INCONVENIENT for a couple of years?

With regards to spring born the whole point of flexibility is that it takes away the 'hard line'
between any two sets of children.
Not all children will enter at CSAge because in the same way that there are parents of Sept born children who say their child could have gone one year early if the system allowed, there will be parents of Apr-Aug
born children who will absolutely feel they're 'ready'.

The system works very well in Alberta, Canada
summerbornchildren.org/2014/05/29/gove-loves-albertas-school-system-well-heres-how-they-do-admissions/

hear hear kelly

I have attempted to delay my son's entry to primary school until compulsory school age due to his late summer birth date and the problems this can cause. I have been met with obstacle after obstacle and our local authority is very unwilling. The law states a child does not have to be in school until compulsory school age [5], and yet I have been forced against my will to send him at age 4 and a few days. What is the point in having a law that is ignored by local authorities.
The shame of it is that if I lived elsewhere, the local authority would be more accepting. It is horrible to send your child to school with others who have had the benefit of 25% more development time, potentially leaving him starting on the back foot. Example, my son can't yet say many blended sounds [dr, tr, ch, sh] but will be expected to take part in phonics in reception. How crazy is that? Too much too soon to coin a phrase.
Shame on you department for education for allowing it to happen.
The short answer is that I've been forced to apply for a school place I don't want! I have been asking for a delayed start since June 2014 and got my answer on Friday last week! It's a total shambles and if it doesn't affect you and your family then it's not well publicised either.

Your argument is that only a very few children would choose to defer if deferring were freely available, leaving the majority of the children you reference struggling just as they are now.

Not true. If the parents were freely informed about the option to defer if they feel their children benefit from another year before school, some would and some won't. Afaik in Scotland the parents are given the choice, so what is wrong with England? What are you and LAs so afraid of?

Put bluntly, there is no reason other than the practical one that if you suddenly had Sep-March one year you'd have a tiny year Oink. Which would be very expensive and disruptive in school financing (currently head based) so they would have to overhaul all of that. Cost is king.

Plus there isn't much demand so it isn't a vote winner.

oink that has the same effect as just raising the CSA to 5.5.

I am in favour of this!

Can anyone answer my question (at 11.20) regarding changing the age cut-off date from end August to end-March?

"Do you know that summerborns are disproportionately diagnosed with SEN? Why do you want to see all the children who are mis-diagnosed with SEN due to age-inappropriate national curriculum struggling along??"

I did know that (lots of my family work in education). I have said repeatedly my views on the starting age for formal education. Those children struggle at least in part because the average starting age is too low. Your argument is that only a very few children would choose to defer if deferring were freely available, leaving the majority of the children you reference struggling just as they are now.

That's really just cherry picking out the privileged children to make sure that they aren't the ones hit by a formal system that starts too young. As I've said, if you start your child after Easter they are still the average age to start (the summer born campaign often talks as if most children start at just shy of 5, they don't).

I don't see how it helps. Either only a handful of families do it- in which case it's privileged for the already privileged. Or many do, in which case it's just shifting the cut off to spring.

Sorry, the last sentence was omitted somehow
Do you know that summerborns are disproportionately diagnosed with SEN? Why do you want to see all the children who are mis-diagnosed with SEN due to age-inappropriate national curriculum struggling along??

I must admit we have been incredibly lucky.

I applied late for ds (Easter) for a place at a good out of catchment, but still in the village, school and we were accepted. But we had tried the local SM school first, unfortunately it did not suit us (very rough and tumble, teachers shouting at KS1 &nursery children, ht on long term sick). Quite a few children from ds's class that year disappeared to other schools.

I've been a little anxious this time, hoping sibling priority will get dd in as they are now an over subscribed school. I can't praise the school and it's teachers enough, it's an amazing school and I'm proud my children go there.

I also still don't understand how 'fixing' all this for summer kids wouldn't just move the problem to spring ones if take up was really as high as everyone seems to think.

Because not every family will want to do it. In fact, anecdotally, very very small proportion will want to. Do you know that summerborns are disproportionately diagnosed with SEN?

And yes, I do understand that there is a CSAge. As I've said, I have a summer born child myself. The law on when you have to be in education is only part of the picture.

The thing is, if all children are going to get the same number of years of school, they are going to have to start at different ages. I can see the frustration, but the reality of starting a child at 4.5 after Easter is that they start at approximately the same age as the vast majority of their peers, or they can start earlier and have the same number of terms. Wherever you fix the cut off that will apply to someone.

I also still don't understand how 'fixing' all this for summer kids wouldn't just move the problem to spring ones if take up was really as high as everyone seems to think.

No. I'm sorry. You are both totally misunderstanding my point.

A later school starting age. Yes, that would benefit lots of children who currently start very young.

A universal right to defer. You really, really think that that wouldn't massively benefit the middle classes. You think that parents who often struggle to engage with the school admissions process as it stands would do so for the purposes of deciding which year their child started? You think that financial pressures of having a child in pre-school, or not working because you can't afford childcare wouldn't make the decision for the majority of poor families? You live in a very privileged bubble if you genuinely believe that instituting this as an automatic choice would create a genuine informed choice for summer born children.

And even if it did, and nearly all summer borns delayed based solely on what was best for them, what purpose does that serve but to now make spring borns the poor youngest. Wherever you push the line back to, someone falls the wrong side. The only real solution is to make the age for formal education higher so that virtually all children (bar SEN) are ready for formal education when they reach the normal starting bracket. Or to go with the Ice's high cost solution.

Not stressful for most parents in this area. More than 95% get their first choice of school. DS got into catchment OFSTED outstanding primary. When we felt obliged to move him in yr2 he got straight into the school nearest to us (catchment was slightly further away) which was also OFSTED outstanding. (Not saying I place huge value on OFSTED opinion!) Most schools are CofE but community rather than faith the priority.

I would like to see an end to the state funding of all faith schools. Let parents spend their time and money on whatever religious education they feel appropriate. An oversight & tolerance of all beliefs is enough for a school to cover.

We aren't stressed - in catchment for our chosen school which is undersubscribed for catchment and we have other children in it.

BUT - the infant and junior school are separate, and you have to apply for both. If you are out of catchment and in infants, you are highly likely to get into the juniors, even if children move into the area in catchment, who are higher up the allocation than you.

I am not clear how the appeals process works, but both sets get in, and junior school is now overfilled.

You can rent in catchment, move out, and get both your first child into junior school and siblings into both with this system.

I think if you apply out of catchment and get in you have to take your chances fairly, both for siblings, and for linked junior schools. I suspect this is an unpopular opinion, but I feel strongly the system needs to tighten up.

I applied into catchment and am very happy with my choice, but didn't apply to an out of catchment school which was more convenient for several reasons, as I could have got the first child in, but possibly not the next child.