Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

The ability to get siblings to different schools depends on the individual schools and the circumstances of the parent(s). (And I say that as someone who currently has 3 children at 3 different schools).

Many of the local primary schools no longer have before or after school care. Those were shut down a few years ago.

The rule is that children can't be left in the playground before a certain time, usually 10 minutes before the final bell goes. If the two schools are more than 10 minutes apart and you don't have anyone else to take the second child, someone is going to be late.

I think there needs to be more done to raise awareness of how the system works. As has been mentioned upthread, too many people still believe the myths like "If I only put one school down, they'll have to give me a place".

Others miss the notifications because they don't have a child in a pre-school setting when the booklets are handed out and the posters in the library are only A4-sized. Others are new to the country and have limited ability to understand the language or the system. It's often the most vulnerable who are left to deal with the problems caused by late or non-existent applications.

Even with the sibling rule though, you have to get the first child in to 'dominate' the allocations in later years. And that's assuming that the younger siblings do get in on the basis of a sibling place, some don't.

I don't know what the answer is. I do think it would be fairer to abolish faith schools completely, and then do the criteria something like this:

1. LAC and SEN
2. catchment children
3. non catchment siblings
4. non catchment

As I said before, siblings do not need to be at the same school. Yes it's easier, but to say it's not physically possible to have children at different schools is ridiculous, I managed it. It makes much more sense for all children to go to their closest school with a place, which may be different to their sibling, than it does for children to be allocated all over the place because siblings living miles away displace non siblings closer to the school.

Sweetie, plenty of faith schools have 50% of their intake on faith without the issues you state. The big problem with that is that the other 50% of places go to siblings of children admitted under faith criteria, so the school gets to claim it's being 'inclusive' while still practising social selection.

You also claimed that faith schools perform better and it's 'for a reason'. That's not quite true. Faith schools perform better when they select based on faith. That is, faith schools that aren't oversubscribed don't perform better.

And yes, there is a good reason. CofE and RC congregations are disproportionately middle class compared to their surrounding populations, and those who fulfil the criteria have parents who are organised, committed and stable enough to jump through the right hoops. Children from more chaotic homes, or where parents have moved a lot, children who are generally less advantaged are underrepresented at these schools.

Parental involvement and support is a good indicator of children's attainment, as is parental education. Given faith schools are cherry picking children of parents who tend to be better educated and more actively involved, it is unsurprising that the children (and therefore the schools) perform better.

Don't those people of faith who back faith-based admissions struggle with the idea that the churches aren't fulfilling their ethos of service to the poorest and most disadvantaged?

Marjorie - Is that an actual guarantee? I would be very surprised if so (and would love to hear where it is!). It sounds like all the local schools just have capacity in the number of places, so choice becomes a reality. If every person put down the same school of the six, presumably they wouldn't all be accommodated and the other five schools not run a reception class?

Where I live there is no catchment area, you can send your child to any of the 6 schools in this area and be guaranteed a place at that school (England). It is how it has always worked.

I am slightly skeptical about the summer-born thing, but I would certainly support exibility for ththose children with an EDD in one school year and a DOB in another - eg due Oct 11, born Aug 11 and due to start this September, but also due Aug 11, born September 1 to start in Sept 16. I can think of at least one child who starts this September at 5 who could comfortably have spent all this year in Reception (socially and intellectually).

I'm Herts and rule 3 allows siblings to dominate. Last year I think it was 48 out of 60 places went to siblings. A bulge class was allocated but the future looks grim, especially for the families that are more than 800 metres away from both schools. Loads of out of area sibs due to a couple of lean years. But then that's just us. Each town/village is different as this thread has proved!

Duckdeamon - But effectively you were arguing that. You were saying that a system ought to be in place with privileges those summer born children who have an engaged educated parent who chooses to defer them. And that the system ought to be in place because it's good for those children. Never mind that it makes the under privileged summer borns who don't defer even worse off than under the current system. What is needed is change that supports everyone, not change that supports those who have clued up parents who work the system to the best advantage of their child.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of those educated parents who would always try and do the best for my child. But it's not me that the system ought to be built around. It's everyone.

Agree with much of what has been said on faith schools. I understand that it wouldn't be possible for LAs to suddenly buy the churches out, but do think that a sensible solution would be for the number of faith based admissions to be in proportion to the amount of the schools' total running costs provided by the church.

I'm on the fence about sibling vs catchment/distance admissions because while I would like to end the sharp practice of renting in catchment for first sibling then buying a cheaper house, I think it would also penalise families with insecure tenancies. So if you get evicted or rents go up, you have the pressure of finding a new, suitable, home, that you can afford, that will accept a family (maybe on HB) and you have to stay in catchment or face having your kids at different schools? In-year admissions are such that you wouldn't necessarily be able to switch the older child to the new school.

In Hertfordshire, admission policies for LA controlled schools are:

1. Medical or social need
2. Siblings
3. Children for whom the school is their nearest non-faith, non-selective school accepting children of their gender
4. Everyone else on distance (no defined catchments)

I think that rule #3 is crucial. In practice, in the oversubscribed towns (i.e. most, if not all of them), it means everyone gets their nearest school or maybe a faith school if that's what they want. But, it means that there are no 'admissions blackspots' where you're not sufficiently close to any school and end up out of area, which is a problem in South London for example. In South London, we would have a choice of a faith school (one of the very few which offers a good proportion of non-faith places, and we are very close) or a massive primary school with mixed reviews. I don't want either so we're moving.

penguins I wasn't arguing that, it is heads of many schools in England who argue that the vast majority DC can be adequately supported "in year".

Regardless of what people think is right or wrong arguing summer born angle, the question was asked for our thoughts on the current systems for allocating primary places - how fair, how stressful etc.

At the moment summer born children simply do NOT have the same access to the primary education. If their parents want them to start at compulsory school age they will in most cases be put into Year 1 with all the consequences for missed a whole year of schooling and severely limited access to school places in oversubscribed areas. The is not the case for ANY OTHER group of children. If parents of autumn or spring born children want them to start at CSA they do so as normal.

If summerborns were a group sharing any other characteristic but age (ie race, sex, disability), this simply would not be allowed. Especially, in the light of all the research showing that this group experience real and continuing disadvantages into adulthood because of when they are born.

You tell me what is fair about it.

That doesn't happen dochollywood.

In my area the community schools are highly-ranked and hugely over-subscribed. What I propose is that faith children are lower down the criteria than non-faith children at the community schools thus allowing non-faith children to secure a place first. Obviously if there are places then faith children can get in otherwise I'm sure that there will be a faith school within 5 miles with places available. I hope that parents of faith children can see that this is fair.

On the subject of summer-borns. I know there needs to be a cut off but it should be a given that severely prem babies that are born late August are offered a deferred YR place. Apologies if that already happens, I know it didn't a few years ago. I work in a primary school and have seen textbook examples of children in the 'wrong' year.

just wanted to point out that giving a percentage of faith school places to non faith children would not work.

But it does work, SweetieXPie, in places where it already happens. The only CofE secondary here does that, and there have been no complaints that I know of, nor any moves to de-CofE the school at all.

I live in a rural area. The next nearest primary school is 4 miles away and not served by public transport.
Here, area children have priority over out of area siblings. Some year groups have as low as 50% in area children, some as high as 80%. Some out of area families have chosen to remove eldest from the school when youngest failed to get a place.
I think priority for in area children is correct here, the area served is 4 villages and the farms in between. Most of our out of area children come from the town 4 miles away. If town siblings were prioritised we would have village kids being taxied to the town school.

"With respect to disadvantaged DC in Scotland - and elsewhere - struggling and this being compounded by being youngest in class (4.5 is youngest start in reception in Scotland), things should be done to seek to improve experience and outcomes for those children. If it is shown that the Scottish system leads to better outcomes for DC whose parents use the flexibility it would be perverse to change the system so that no DC benefited."

That is completely illogical. If being supported in 'their' year is doing enough to support disadvantaged youngest children then how is the case that starting school a year old is necessary for far more privileged children?

All it would do is further institutionalise disadvantage. Great if you are the privileged child of engaged and educated parents who have deferred you to fall at the top of a 15 month age bracket. Not so great if you are the youngest in the year and have no such privilege.

And I agree with Tiggy. People want Autumn children for the advantage of being the eldest. If routine deferral were possible, people would want the same advantage for their August child. Someone has to be the youngest. If the issue is (as I think it is) that a lot of the youngest are not ready for formal education, the solution is to shift the age at which formal education starts.

^"I just wanted to add the idea of having 50% of faith school places go to non faith children, that some posters have suggested, unfortunately just wouldn't work.
The parents of the 50% non faith children would all soon start complaining that the curriculum is too based around the religion, also what would all these children do when Mass was going on or when the school take a visit to the church ( which happen regularly) before you knew it, the faith school wouldn't be allowed to have a nativity or have Easter break in case it offended someone,^"

I don't think this is the case at all. If you elected to send your child to a faith based school despite not being not of that faith, you would be accepting that your child received a faith based education.

I just wanted to add the idea of having 50% of faith school places go to non faith children, that some posters have suggested, unfortunately just wouldn't work.
The parents of the 50% non faith children would all soon start complaining that the curriculum is too based around the religion, also what would all these children do when Mass was going on or when the school take a visit to the church ( which happen regularly) before you knew it, the faith school wouldn't be allowed to have a nativity or have Easter break in case it offended someone,
This is the reason Catholic parents choose to send their children to Catholic schools, they want to have the religion celebrated not hampered in case it offends someone.
As another poster said above, I know people that send their children to catholic schools which are failing as they desperately want their children to have the religious aspect of the education.
I know I will probably get the same
old "you should send your child private then" just wanted to point out that giving a percentage of faith school places to non faith children would not work.

There is only one primary school in our village. This leads to having some oversubscribed years and some years that are tiny. The school has tried both bulge classes and composite classes - both have disadvantaged some children.
This year is a huge class, following 2 capacity year groups, and some of the kids in the village won't get in (they physically won't have enough room even if they could split the class). The next nearest school with places is 3 miles away, but there is no direct bus (except for the secondary kids) and no footpath. The reality for those children without a place and no car is going to be home schooling or no schooling until a place becomes avaliable. For the May intake there won't be any places.
The school is a victim of it's own success - young families now move here to get into the catchment. DS class has increased from 24 to 32 (classes are capped at 30 in theory) over 5 years.
Secondary is going to be harder - for the Y6 no one from our village got a place at the local high school. The next nearest is in special measures and is 5 miles away (where most of the kids have been allocated to). The 3rd option is 16 miles away and only takes siblings.
The process itself is easy - fill in form, wait, hope you get in. Panic when you don't.

Thankfully DS is a November baby, he is just about coping in reception and socially and academically he is just starting to "click" now. If he had been summer born he would have really struggled and I would have fought for him to be able to start next year instead.

almostapril your anecdotal experience of summer born DC thriving doesn't, sadly, accord with the evidence.

With respect to disadvantaged DC in Scotland - and elsewhere - struggling and this being compounded by being youngest in class (4.5 is youngest start in reception in Scotland), things should be done to seek to improve experience and outcomes for those children. If it is shown that the Scottish system leads to better outcomes for DC whose parents use the flexibility it would be perverse to change the system so that no DC benefited.

So I favour only 50 percent faith places in schools, the rule some LA use that you get sibling priority if you have not moved or moved closer to the school and possibly going back to a January intake for the youngest?
I never did reception and started at 5 in year one. I was always jealous of the ones who did reception as it looked more fun! That was a long time ago and in days when it was more common and schools were not oversubscribed