Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

CalamitouslyWrong - that's what I thought re variances. And yes the one school I felt near us was too formal was a very MC school were lots of parents go private at 11 and there is a lot of tutoring etc. Its a broad statement but one that rings true between my friends and all the different schools (posher areas, reception kids seem to be pushed harder). The more city schools with very diverse catchments are more creative and play focused.
I wasn't suggesting that nursery should aver offer priority, but just that their biggest concerns is where they will be allocated, not that their 4 years olds are not ready - but then they have all been at the school nursery, so of course they are uuum.

I like the concept of loss of sibling place if you move further away (e.g for us over 1 mile could work as distance is always less than 0.5m) as a default unless a family can show that it was beyond their control etc
Our school is one where people move and then locals cant get it tho.

this thread seems very out of line with the real worries parents have regarding admissions

Definitely agree!

I thought the faith admissions discussion was v important - this is something that comes up all the time in my conversations with other parents (oversubscribed Greater London borough) and the overwhelming majority of people I talk to seem to think that it's outdated and should be scrapped.

This is interesting:

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/12/uk-one-of-worlds-least-religious-countries-survey-finds

I think the families with children in nursery who may not get a place situation is always going to be inevitable. You cannot prioritise those children whose families were in a position to have them attend the nursery class over those children (who live closer) whose parents needed to send them to a private nursery for childcare reasons (or who moved or any of the numerous other reasons that they might not have been able to send their child to the school nursery). That's simply not fair.

The siblings issue is also very tricky. In some ways, the fairest solution would be to have some sort of priority areas or maximum distances for which sibling priority holds, after which children are treated like non-sibling applicants. However, that only works if schools don't vary in popularity (e.g. a school in special measures that people who live far away are allocated as a last resort that turns round to become outstanding and all the local parents then want places; I'm not sure it's fair to have the families who originally drew the short straw to not have sibling priority and need to get two children to two schools at opposite ends of a town) and if there are no anomalies like bulge classes (which are often filled by families who didn't choose the school but there were no other spaces).

It's presumably a bit of an administrative nightmare to qualify that kind of rule with 'if the family have moved since their child started school'. People don't always have the kind of control over where they live that this kind of rule imagines them to have. People in rented accomodation often have to move because their LL gives them notice and then can struggle to find somewhere to rent. It's happened to us in the past and we ended up having to move from 5 minutes walk from the school to a 30+ minute drive away in a tiny village because there was nothing suitable available in the local area at all.

It seems very hard to prevent people gaming the system by purposefully living near popular schools for a short time then moving out to a bigger/cheaper house because they know they've secured schools places for all their children through sibling priority without disadvantaging many other people.

I totally agree that the problem is too few schools places, too little slack in the system and poor planning (exacerbated by policy shifts that prevent LAs having control over this).

The suitability of reception classes does, I think, vary quite widely. DS2's reception class was a lovely, totally suitable, play-based experience run by imaginative staff who clearly understood young children well. He has a late August birthday and absolutely thrived (he was pretty exhausted by it all, but that's ok; he's still exhausted by the end of term coming towards the end of Y1 - and DS1 is pretty exhausted in Y10).

However, I know that other local schools are much more formal. In fact the schools with the most middle class intakes tend to be the most formal. Friends' children attend one such school and they have had formal handwriting homework right from the start of reception every week. They also get regular maths, reading and spelling homework at this point in the year. In fact, they get more homework than DS2 does in Y1 (we've got daily, or thereabouts, reading practice and weekly spelling, plus the very occasional project). I would imagine DS2 would have struggled more in that school than where he is.

Thing is, parents can't actually choose between the schools based on what they want/think will work for their child. There's a thin veneer of choice within the system, but you will simply get a place where there's spaces. The super-formal reception school was the only school my friends (who all live close together) could get a place in and was their emergency 'choice'. They all live within walking distance of us, but we live in the middle of a very small circle of several schools which gives us genuine choices that they didn't have because they live a bit further away.

It might be better if more were done to explain what the system actually is (although I'd imagine the political will is not there as most parties are keen to encourage the idea that they let parents choose). It's not 'parental choice' in any meaningful sense for a great many people. All they can do us express their preferences, but too often parents need to do a lot of work to figure out what the chances of their preference gambles coming off are. That's an awful situation that most people find quite tricky, but that must be a nightmare of you are new to the country or lack English or literacy skills etc.

this thread seems very out of line with the real worries parents have regarding admissions

Never a truer word was spoken, tiggy. It's like being cornered by a bore at a party. A rude bore.

I would add that there are roughly 90 nursery parents at our school anxiously awaiting allocations.Typically about 15-25 wont get into reception due to siblings and distance. They all know this fact.
There will be about 50-60 sibling places. Some now live miles away.There are siblings that will appear and get in who attend different/private or no nursery.
There are children at different/private or no nursery that live closer. This normally accounts for 10-15 places too.
Those parents are all be immensely stressed about it all by now as they have no control over where there child gets allocated. Some have good schools as a back up, plenty don't. Some may end up travelling miles to a school they don't want. That's a much bigger concern IMO

This thread has spiralled well away from the original question of - What do you think about how your LA allocates places?
Was this not about over subscription, sibling rules, faith criteria etc

I am not convinced by the summerborn campaign but am convinced that reception should be what was always meant to be. I totally agree with Tiggy (as always) and others like Ionone. As I said previously I know vast numbers of parents, with reception age DC of all sorts of ability and ages, but no one has said their 4 year olds are struggling with reception - possibly as our school and all those near by treat reception as geared to 4 year olds and is very much play based and the kids are happy.

I think a few 20min activities based on phonics and numbers in the morning followed by tons of free play and child-led exploration and small groups working on practical tasks for the rest of the day seems about right for 4 year olds? They learn to make friends, work with others, look after their possessions, follow instructions, go to the toilet unaided, dress and undress for PE, choose and eat lunch, select their own activities, colour, build, paint, cook, plant stuff, junk model etc. Most happily pick up basic reading just fine.

There obviously must be schools out there that have reception children doing much more formal stuff by what people say. I am horrified when I hear of reception children getting daily formal home work at the likes. The worst near us seem to the private schools and those in areas where prep for grammar is expected from the offset. That's what I think people should object to.

The sensible thing to do would be to make sure provision at age 4 is suitable for all of those aged 4 (with the acknowledgement that children of age 4 vary hugely in maturity and ability and this is fine and catered for).

I don't know if things have changed enormously in the last few years but this seemed to be exactly what was the case at DD's school when she started in Reception a few years ago. The vast majority of the time appeared to be child-led exploration and small groups working on practical tasks with only very short sessions of sitting and listening etc. Her academic peers now in Y3 are a mixture of children born at all points in the year.

And all this talk of summerborn children missing a year of education - isn't that precisely what everyone starting at the start of the academic year was supposed to prevent? Those summerborn children who miss out on Reception are doing so at the request of their parents and it is very very few of them indeed (generally it seems to be those with additional needs that mean the child would always struggle to keep up with peers, not temporary lack of maturity which is for most children likely to even out as they grow). I'm afraid I cannot see 'missing' a few terms of preschool as missing a year of education. DD had three terms of preschool and it was more than enough in terms of preparing her for what school might be like (being part of a group, following instructions, relating to peers - there certainly wasn't any formal education).

I'm sighing because you have decided that a conversation is an attack.

I have one child that would be advantaged by such a change and one disadvantaged. So should I see your campaign as an attack on the latter? Or is that pretty unhelpful?

1. the starting at age 6/7 was actually not meant as a respinse to these comments (slip of finger on mobile phone)
2. talking hypothetically about something is one thing, but when there are children currently suffering because of current status quo and that child is yours, any attempt to disuade anyone from achieving a better outcome for their child / challenging the part of the system they feel can be changed in the short term, will feel like an attack
3. a natural next step would not be a shift in admission policy according to new hard line dates, but rather a more flexible approach to providing what is best for each individual child irrespective of when they were born, to allow every child to reach their full potential.

Education as an alternative to child care is sad, but I understand the current issues associated with cost and some parents don't have a choice. The current system should change to allow more choice, that is something the summerborn campaign is asking for- more choice. That is a first step in getting more choice across the board for everyone imo.

Also just wondering why it is necessary to sigh younicscrewdriver when it is a discussion of opinions? What are you trying to say exactly by adding a 'sigh'?
So difficult to ascertain intentions in discussions which are not face to face.

Sigh, Jenny.

Some people agree with the campaign and some do not. That's not attack, it's discussion.

Once the principle of a spread of ages of 17m is established and widespread, why would a natural next step be a reduction in this spread to 12m and everyone starting between 5.5 and 6.5 or whatever?

I have explained quite a few times. Put simply, I don't think it fixes the problem. I don't think it's a good first step. I think it makes it worse and I think it's socially regressive because it will most affect the poorest in society. There are loads of posts on this thread - including very good ones by Tiggy explaining that.

As I understand it this is just a step towards the ultimate outcome, which is something other than what we currently have. Ultimately the goal is for a change to the system. Why do you think attacking the summerborn campaign will help with that? At least they are campaigning for change which may allow even further change in future.

I don't live in the UK any more. I think I prefer the school system here, it certainly seems less stressful for the parents!

Formal school starts at age 6, everyone automatically has a place at their "catchment" school - though you can make an application to go to a different school if you want. I don't know who makes the decision as to whether you can or not. We didn't even have to register - the school sent us a letter saying DD was due to start that September.

It is not that unusual here for children to be held back a year before starting, particularly if they are young for their year. I think you just need a letter from your doctor, maybe from the Kindergarten. There is a bit of crossover too - children born in certain months can go to school a year early if they are ready. I think that's a good system too.

I really like that DD can walk to school with her friends, and they all live locally, and she knew a fair few of the children already from going to Kindergarten with them. I think it makes the school more a part of the local community.

I suppose we have less "choice" than in the UK - we aren't allowed to home educate either. And there is nothing like Ofsted rating individual schools. Our school seems good to me, but I don't have anything to compare it to. I don't actually mind having less choice, it seems a lot fairer somehow, and there isn't the angst over getting into a good school that there seems to be in the UK. I do see that it would be harder to have a system automatic catchment schools in the UK, because so many schools are faith schools.

There aren't faith schools here as such, however church and school do seem more linked than in the UK. DC are taught religion seperately according to whether they are protestant or catholic; children of other faiths are allowed to go home early or come in late.
There are (non-compulsory) ecumenical school church services at various points in the year. As a christian family, we like this, but I can see that atheist families or those of other faiths might be less happy with it.

The evidence shows starting education early is not beneficial. The best systems with the best outcomes (such as Finland, and others) all start school aged 6 or 7. What is the rush? Let them grow and play for a while longer and so many more will achieve so much more later in life.

Have you read the thread? I'm not sure I've seen a single poster disagree with delaying the most formal learning. It's the nimby solution that it is criticised.

The evidence shows starting education early is not beneficial. The best systems with the best outcomes (such as Finland, and others) all start school aged 6 or 7. What is the rush? Let them grow and play for a while longer and so many more will achieve so much more later in life.

So just because other children may be less fortunate we should not seek what is best for our own children? We each have to do what we believe is best for our children within our ability, or we will have failed in our duty as parents.

It is utterly normal to seek to do the best for your child, even if it makes life just that little bit worse for other children.

There is a reason public policy isn't made on that basis.

So just because other children may be less fortunate we should not seek what is best for our own children? We each have to do what we believe is best for our children within our ability, or we will have failed in our duty as parents. There exists a compulsory school age ( ie term after they turn 5 - still too young imo) so why are children who are not ready a year early at age 4 either forced to start early or miss a year of essential education? It is appalling and the system is a shambles and a disgrace.

This, more often than not results in misdiagnosis of SEN; resulting in more of the teachers time taken away from let's say...children not born in the summer because they are spending time offering extra support to those summer borns who perhaps wouldn't have needed it if they weren't made to miss a year. This has a negative impact on non summer borns too.

By your own definition, the children more likely to be diagnosed with SEN (and it's important to remember it was a comparison against September and not the year as a whole) hadn't been made to miss a year of school. They were comparing children starting school at different ages.

Why is a child being forced out of a class into a new class without their friends and being made to learn things they know nothing about? I don't understand how or when this is happening?

Your summer born is not made to miss a year of school, you can start them in September at 4 and get the whole year.

I agree the current education system overall as it stands will advantage some children and disadvantage others but that's a different campaign and a whole other issue i.e a later formal school starting age

While this is happening in the background (toomuchtoosoon campaign) we have to also campaign against the CURRENT admissions system. The current system makes summer born children miss a year of education (at any point) and that has to stop. That's what the summer born campaign is aiming to stop.

If...I mean when the summer born campaign is successful I think this will be a stepping stone for ALL children. The government will begin to see how this has significant improvements for summer borns and will perhaps realise that a later school start for ALL children would be beneficial, perhaps...but in the meantime we have to 'fight' against what we've got and it is in no childs interests to make them miss a year of school.

Again, missing the point many of us have summer borns.

And who was the child feeling sad at my son's nursery because all his friends had left? That's right, the September born one who was there another year.

Whatever system is devised will advantage some children and disadvantage others. Do you agree?