Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

Agree Tiggytape that the two bites of a cherry is one of the potential pitfalls of potential delay for SB's but as we can see with all admission criteria, there will always be those that abuse the system.

I would be happy to have to decide prior to admissions person ally, and only be allowed to make an application for one year (as I said my application this year is a complete waste of time, and annoys me that I am taking a place which someone else may be desperate for, but our LA insisted!) but there is many parents who may not be aware of the option to delay or may not be concerned until closer to September.

I'd be curious to know how many people would delay for a whole year in the hope they may or may not get their preferred school place. If you didnt get it the first year, you'd be likely to have the same outcome the second and have your child at home or in nursery for 12 months more with only a slim chance of your cherry being sweeter the 2nd time?

I think to even out chances for all, faith schools should only be allowed to allocated a percentage by faith. It's farcical near us with people who don't believe attending church for 2 years, getting children baptised etc as there are too few non faith places. I know 3 people personally who baptised children RC to get school place - with a year or so of mass attendance. Where there are lots of faith schools it's very distorted. Lots of people drive to out local RC school and it creates total traffic chaos.

for community schools - We are an area that uses distances and sibling always get priority - so people rent or stay in tiny flats and houses then move as soon as pfb is in. Local pfb then struggle to get in as distances are shrinking yearly. You see those who have done it as they drive to school despite nearest distance being 0.3m (obviously many do have different reasons to drive).
They move to cheaper areas and are open about what they did.

I get why people are concerned by summer born issue but I second that in Ireland and Scotland you end up with disadvantaged 4 year olds in the same year and class as middle class well supported 5 year old where they have benefited from an extra year of enriching activities. My experience is that the summer borns at a good primary thrive

Sorry, most heads and admissions authorities assert (but obviously can't be sure) that childrens' needs can be met in the "correct" year because they don't want to start admitting DC "out of year" for administrative reasons.

tiggytape it is virtually impossible to provide "compelling professional evidence that the child’s needs can only be met by keeping them back a year as opposed to giving them additional support in their “correct year”. It can be hard to access NHS services. Health care professionals' standards don't require them to advise on education issues and many refuse to do so. Diagnoses can be unclear at such a young age. Most heads and admissions authorities will assert that the child can be support

This isn't about pushy parents seeking to get ahead! Just trying to prevent our DC struggling badly in reception and way beyond.

"Red shirting" in America is completely different: DC can repeat or put down a year at different stages. Scotland is the better comparison, but all DC there do start school older.

IFS
DfE Month of Birth and Education

And btw tiggytape there is no "a perceived disadvantage" there is a very clear documented disadvantage. You can find it in 2013 IFS report on summer born school start AND in a government own report on education and the month of birth if you care to google. In fact, the latter states the attainment gap between summer and autumn borns is over 20% at the end of primary school and is actually wider than between kids from rich and poor families. Obviously, summer born boys from poorer families are really affected, especially if their parents cannot jump through the hoops most LAs force them to.

There is a huge hidden cost associated with forcing immature summer born children to follow the increasingly formalised reception. This cost is in disproportionate SEN diagnoses and increasing cases of repeat reception or subsequent years... this cost is borne by the very LAs that make inappropriate decisions for the youngest children.

As for "bite of the cherry" argument, well, there is a way to legislate against it, if there was a will. Incidentally, during the last year summer born consultation only one council came up with this argument.

I personally am baffled why it is more important to compile a neat chronological batches of children to be processed that to follow parental lead and allow those parents feel will benefit from another year in environment with no academic pressures. It is not like there will be a stampede judging by a comments on summer born issues in the press across political spectrum... but hey ho.

I also wanted to mention the issue of summer born children - our DS (4) is currently in Reception. He will not be of CSA on any day this academic year, and yet we felt that we had no choice about sending him to school last September. It's truly ridiculous, we'd much rather that he started Reception next September when he actually is of CSA.

As a parent of a summerborn we most certainly do have to go through a very difficult process to enrol our children in reception at compulsory school age.

Firstly we have to battle with the admissions authority, as many are unaware of the school admisisons code and summerborn guidance; which allows us to request a reception start at CSAge. Often families are told that they don't even have this option. It's a battle from the start. We then have to find out which schools (if they are their own governing body) will even allow us a reception start at CSAge before submitting our preferences. Often families can't submit three as they can't find three schools to support them. This limits our choice. Throughout all this we have to find and submit 'evidence' which often many of us won't have...and shouldn't have to have. We have to have evidence to PROVE why it is in our children's best interests to start in reception and not year one. There is no evidence that suggests missing a whole year of school is in a childs best interests.

Even if we are 'successful' and our requests are agreed there is always the threat that our children can be made to miss any other year (at any point) and re-join their 'chronological' age group. This is shocking, but it is happening, with massive consequences for the child.

So why are our children penalised for starting school at compulsory school age and made to miss a year...?

...because the DfE have legislated a subjective code. A code that needs amending so ALL summerborn children have the right to seven years primary and five years secondary education.

Unfortunately, our LA does not allocate places in what I would consider a fair process. I would not like my dd (who turns 3 in June) to start school almost a year before she reaches CSAge, but it means we will have no chance to get into any of our local oversubscribed schools unless pigs fly and we are successful at that circus of a process that is called deceleration. Thank god, home education is an option.

I've referenced a failing Catholic school too Dee.

This is interesting:

My experience in RL is basically that people who got the school they want think the admissions criteria is fair; those who didn't think it's unfair and wish to change it to a system that remarkable would just happen to give their dc admission. of course that's not why they think it's fairer, oh no...

I think it generally is fair, except I think there should be a limit in how far someone can move and still count as sibling link. And councils should follow up fraud applications.

If they could do it it would be good if they could produce an app. for when you are doing an online application that either gives you an idea (with disclaimers) of which schools you would have got into in the previous years, so people could potentially choose their last choice to be the best of those. Or even come up with a warning if you are unlikely to get any of their options.

One of the issues to me is the myths that people perpetuate-like if you only put down one school you must get that... "it worked for me...". Thus encouraging others to make poor choices. Very difficult to stop that. I've spoken to some very intelligent individuals who assert that "a governor promised I would get in" or "If I list this one (with catchment area 20m and I live 5 miles away) I will definitely get in, X said so" or similar rubbish.

For those singing the praises of the Scottish system, I find this interesting because I know several people who have had numerous issues with that system in other ways. I definitely don't think it's better overall. In fact my cousins had such a time at first school entry that my uncle deliberately chose to take a job in England before secondary school entry.

I'm also finding it very interesting that the assumption of faith schools is that the people only want the school really because it's good. So we're assuming all faith schools are good/outstanding?
Interesting. In my parents' area there's a failing Catholic (secondary, almost no Catholic primaries) school. Been failing for many years on and off, they always do enough to scrape through and then drift back again.
But, you know what, the Catholics still overwhelmingly choose to send their children there despite living much closer (and would easily get in) to the good comprehensives. So it is that they want the catholic education not that they are merely sweeping up the good schools.

Changing - because admission numbers in highly populated areas would change widely and unpredictability. And schools couldn't offer places to out of catchment kids with no idea how many of the catchment kids might not take a place up.

Don't see why you're not auto allocated place at closest catchment school then you can reject and apply to others knowing you have a place per se

There should be the optionfor summer-born children to start receptn at age 5. People who want their summer-born DC to start at 4 can already do so.

The current arrangements for admissions "out of year group" put families in a very difficult, stressful position.

Admission authorities don't have to take a decision within particular timescales. Demand "evidence", which health professionals are under no obligation to provide as they are not education experts. Choice between accepting a place in the "normal" intake for reception or taking the chance of seeking a start in reception a year later, being declined, then offered a place in year 1 (thus missing reception) wherever there is space. Or, if lucky and allowed to start reception at age 5, DC being made to skip a full year's education later on to bring them back to the "correct" year group. No right of appeal in any of this.

The ever increasing focus on targets will make things especially hard for summer-born DC like mine who have SN in addition.

Plenty of schools already teach DC with large age-ranges: my local school has mixed-age classes anyway, with 2-year age gaps.

As for lower-income families not using the flexibility in Scotland, the reasons for and impact on DC of that should be investigated.

yes, yes, different process for summer borns (although too late for my mid August teen who is about to finish school) as I have always felt that she is up to a year behind (emotionally and developmentally if not academically) her peers.

Also, I agree to a restricted catchment area for siblings at primary school but I think that sibling priority at secondary should be removed with distance being the main criteria following SEN and looked after children. Secondary school children are more than able to travel to school on their own in most cases.

I know someone who 'cheated' their way into the most 'desirable' secondary school in our area and then her two younger got in as siblings even though her eldest was not entitled to a place in the first instance. Genuinely, not hearsay.

Totally agree with the need for action on summer born children - or in fact any children that would benefit from starting at a different time to that deemed best by the government.

We would generally have better outcomes if schooling was matched to kids rather than the other way around!

Echoing PMHull, we have been told to apply this year for a place that we have no intention of taking by our Local Authority. I also expect that we will get into a school that I know is generally oversubscribed and very much desirable to a lot of people, yet my son is likely going to be given a place that we will reject pretty swiftly after offered.

ACTION NEEDED
I found the whole process very stressful. My twin boys were born 3 months prem in Aug 2010. They were due to start reception last Sept, but we as parents felt they weren't ready. Their GP, HV and nursery agreed with us and we applied for a delay. Our chosen school didn't support us saying that the computer system wouldn't be able take my boys' details as they were born in the wrong year. However the CSA in this country is 5 and no child should be forced to start school before this age. Many LAs up and down the country are making the school application process a very difficult and unfair one. There're government guidelines that gives parents of summer born/ premature children the choice to delay their school years. However, many parents are forced to provide endeless evidence and spend thousands on specilists such psycologists, speech therapists and solicitors.
After nearly 2 years we finally had the news we wanted and my twins will start recep in Sept at 5 years old. Still, if we change county or the headteacher changes, it could all change! Also, during their school year they may be made to skip a year at any time, meaning they may not have access to same number of years of education as other children.
Not all parents of summer born/prem children will ask for a delay. It's an individual choice as all children develop at different rates. Parents know their children best, don't we?

Actually, for those who have cited Scotland, I was speaking recently to a teacher in Scotland who thinks it's an awful system.

They have something like a 15month age spread across a school year. And it tends to be the educated, affluent parents who decide to defer entry. So it tends to be the least advantaged of the cohort who start at the youngest age.

I don't disagree that we start very young. I totally see that there is an issue for many summer borns. I am not sure picking and choosing when children start is the answer. I would prefer formal education to start later for all children.

Summer Born Children in England:

Summer born children should be taken out of paragraph 2.17 of the School Admissions Code.

The legal meanings of 'reception class' and 'relevant age group' contained within the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (section 142), 'compulsory school age' contained within the Education Act 1996 and the 'prescribed day' (s) contained within The Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998 all appear to support a reception class start at compulsory school age for summer born children.

However, currently, if parents of a summer born child wish their child to start school in reception class at Compulsory School Age, they can only 'request' this, as the outgoing government legislated (it would appear retrospectively, since previously to this summer born children being classified as 'outside their normal age group' first appeared in non-statutory advice in 2013) that these children are 'outside their normal age group' within the December 2014 School Admissions Code, despite the legal meanings above in primary legislation.
Parents of summer born children wishing their child to start in reception class AT compulsory school age and not before experience great difficulty, as a direct result of the outgoing governments School Admissions Code and it's subjective nature and deference to localism in these cases. This has resulted in threatened and actual loss of access to reception class and therefore preferred schools. Even when a parent is 'successful' in their request, there are no procedural or legislative guarantees in place to ensure that the child will not be forced to leapfrog a year at any point - this has happened and the Department for Education is aware that this has happened.

You will be able to see from written evidence we submitted to the Education Select Committee that the evidence that the Department for Education supplied to the Committee to back up their summer born policy doesn't actually do this and that there are huge inconsistencies coming out of the DfE on this (examples in the Appendix of Summer Born Campaign written evidence).

Department for Education policy and evidence - www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Education/evidence-check-forum/summer-born-children.pdf
Summer Born Campaign written evidence - data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/education-committee/evidence-check-starting-school/written/18267.html

This isn't 'holding back', it is starting on time - at the statutory school age. Not aware of any other country that penalises its children for starting at statutory school age. The government should be ashamed of themselves.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom

You are absolutely correct that the majority of children start school earlier than CSAge, and this is partly to do with the fact that both the IFS and Rose Review found that children who missed just one term of secondary school were disadvantaged compared to those who experienced the full year.

Indeed a whole campaign exists (Too Much Too Soon) that addresses the formal education that starts in Reception classes, which can add pressure on some parents to enrol their child in school earlier than they might like - so that they don't 'miss out' on this 'crucial' and 'critical' foundation year (DfE's words in brackets).

I maintain that parents of summer born parents DO have to endure a different application process however; no other parents must apply one year early for a school place they don't want, and their list of preferences are not limited by whether a school will accept their CSAge child into Reception class.

Another example - parents of autumn born children are not told their child must be 'assessed' if they decide to enter school at CSAge (i.e. January start of second term of Reception), and a decision made as to whether they should skip Reception class entirely and go straight into Year 1.

I understand that culturally we are so used to children starting school early that parents of summer born children who wish to wait until CSAge are seen as 'delaying' their child's entry, and discussion tends to focus on whether or not they should do this, but the reality is we have primary legislation that wholly supports this choice, and it is the DfE's Code that has muddied the waters unnecessarily.

I would also point out that wherever people stand on this issue, all parents need to be aware that the current system is having a detrimental effect on ALL children and all school places - because we are now seeing increasing numbers of cases where parents of summer born children forced to enter Reception at age 4 are requesting, and being granted, a repeated Reception year. This effectively means a school place was lost to another child during the first Reception year:
summerbornchildren.org/2015/03/27/cost-of-dfes-code-continues-repeating-reception-is-the-latest-summer-born-sticking-plaster/

SweetiexPie it wouldn't cause mayhem. In many countries, it's an option. Not just for the youngest in the year but the entire cohort is given the option of starting later if their parents feel it is the child's best interest. Australia has a system where it works, Scotland does also. There's many systems that we could take advice from.

There's mounting evidence that summerborns struggle, not just academically but emotionally and mentally. Given the evidence, I am very keen for my son to start school on time, rather than early. He's not CSAge until the September after he is given the option to start, but doing so is proving a battle on all fronts.

And what is being asked for is flexibility. For those where a child is ready, to start early, at 4. But for those who feel their child isn't developmentally/behaviourally/academically ready to start at 4, the option to start at 5, in reception. Many countries have a much more flexible system than ours (and manage it successfully).
Sorry, rant over :)

My understanding is that it isn't 'holding them back'. Summer born children who start days or weeks after they turn 4 are actually starting school EARLY. Yes the majority of children do start early, but how early is the question.

Compulsory school age is the term after a child turns 5. It is parental choice to decide whether to start a child at CSA or before. That isn't the question. The question is whether it is appropriate for a child who starts school at CSA (a parental right if they wish) to start in year 1 (rather than reception)?

And if you read the IFS report, there are still marked differences at 16. We have one of the youngest starting ages in the world. We are making it even younger by starting them at 'newly four' (rather than the 5 of CSA).