Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

TeWi

Just underlines how self-centered and arrogant the summerborn campaign is

Ah well, looks like you have a new person who will actively fight against what you want now.

I really don't understand why you would actively fight against a campaign that is trying to stop children missing a whole year of their education? This is a heart breaking situation for so many children. Can you imagine how a child feels to be taken out of their class, away from all their friends to join a new class who will not only have formed friendships but also have the advantage of a whole year's education. This not only has a huge impact on a child academically but more so effects a child emotionally. This child will often wonder what is 'wrong with them', why they've been forced to leave their friends and why they are now in a class learning about things they know nothing about!

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.

You actively want to campaign for this to happen?! Wow!

This isn't about 'sharpening our elbows' our trying to make our children the 'sharpest and cleverest kids' it's making sure we don't make them go through what I've described above. It's about not making them miss a year (at any point) It's about a point in law, compulsory school age.

Sounds like the school was fab tho until 5/6 staff left.

Here's a blog post I wrote on why I wish we'd never accepted the primary school place we were offered last year. What happens when your dream primary school just isn't?

makemeanearthmother.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/what-happens-when-your-dream-primary.html

Three new Local Authority primary schools are opening up around where I live. How come they are not being forced to be Free Schools, I wonder? (that wouldn't work, because nobody wants to do it and the places just wouldn't be there for the thousands of new kids moving into the new housing developments).

In contrast, campaigning to make reception (and years 1 and 2 for that matter) more suitable for all young children would improve things for everyone. Focusing on the system serving the children that attend rather than trying to mould children to an inappropriate system would reduce (and could actually eliminate) the number of people who genuinely needed to defer a school place, simply because the school system could actually meet their needs.

The comparison with Scotland also exposes another way in which the campaign is simply an attempt to shift the disadvantage on to other children.

You see, children in Scotland start school between 4.5 and 5.5. The youngest children have February birthdays. But still parents who can afford it defer their winter born children so they can be most advantaged by the rules rather than the least advantage.

If we shift things so that children born between April and August can defer with no compelling reason, then we'd simply be shifting the problem on to those children with March birthdays (and those summer born children whose parents haven't been able to defer them, mostly because they can't afford it) who happen to still be the same age or younger than any of the children expected to start school in Scotland (based on a mid-August start date in Scotland vs a n early September start date in England) and whose parents are allowed to defer them because they're too young.

However, we're told that this flexibility (for those privileged enough to take advantage of it) will somehow solve the problem in England.

The available terms of preschool education thing is a total red herring, and also is about stamping feet about people's perceived entitlement for their children to have a set number of terms at preschool which doesn't actually exist. Some of the children will have had nearly 5 full years of FT attendance at nursery all year round when they start at school because their parents needed the childcare.

Sorry, that should say 8/12th of birth months. Obviously if lots of people started deferring summer kids only the non deferred would get three terms.

Also, purely on entitlement to free hours, 8/12 of the class will have 3 or 4 terms. You think it is not moving the advantage to the deferred summer born to get at least 50% more than the majority of the rest of the class? You always talk as if every other child was born on 1 September!

"ignoring the fact that 5/12 of the other children in their child's cohort will have been at preschool for only 3 terms. "

This is an overstatement. Many parents access pre school before their child turns 3 and don't forget some have access from 2.

I'd be perfectly happy with a "4 terms of pre school for all"campaign.

And is actually quite upsetting.

Just underlines how self-centered and arrogant the summerborn campaign is.

Ah well, looks like you have a new person who will actively fight against what you want now.

I don't feel the need to educate myself on the differences between my child and others, but thanks for the suggestion

... well that says an awful lot.

*Um - starving, you realise my son has hearing loss? Deaf children have significantly below average academic outcomes (and many deaf children like my DS have no other SN, so absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be doing well) - if your think your nt child is at a colossal disadvantage because they have a few less terms at preschool then you need to educate yourself.

My DS is at the moment, and yes he might be December but he is so far behind where my late March older child was at the same time. They're both bright kids, it's not a coincidence that he struggles.*
Um - Tewi, no, I didn't realise that however the argument still stands. I don't believe my son will be at a "colossal disadvantage" - I simply wanted to point out that if someone says a child with 6 terms of preschool will disadvantage their child who has been at preschool for 5 terms, they are ignoring the fact that 5/12 of the other children in their child's cohort will have been at preschool for only 3 terms. I don't feel the need to educate myself on the differences between my child and others, but thanks for the suggestion.

Penguins - I am struggling to articulate it properly, sorry. Of course one section of the class will have always had more time at preschool. I wanted to point out that the disadvantage can be shifted - a delayed summerborn child would have more time at preschool but as this would be all of one term I don't think it can be argued as a disadvantage for a winterborn who already will have two terms more education than 5/12 of the class, plus the advantage of age (and several preschools by me allocate places by age - my late August DS almost missed preschool education at all as he only got a place due to someone leaving). Perhaps the fairest thing is that everyone can have 3/4/5 terms of preschool before they start school, regardless of where they were born in the school year. But this is a whole different issue so I will quietly step away!

Agree Penguins, which is why it would be better if the focus of the summer born campaigners was on ensuring the early years of school were much more play based than they are now. That would benefit all children, including the summer borns.

Um - starving, you realise my son has hearing loss? Deaf children have significantly below average academic outcomes (and many deaf children like my DS have no other SN, so absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be doing well) - if your think your nt child is at a colossal disadvantage because they have a few less terms at preschool then you need to educate yourself.

My DS is at the moment, and yes he might be December but he is so far behind where my late March older child was at the same time. They're both bright kids, it's not a coincidence that he struggles.

The issue of pre-school is a complicated one.

Yes, as a parent of children who each 'lost' (or will lose) 2 terms of pre-school funding I do feel that that process is unfair. It means that the oldest children get the advantage of the most pre-school.

This is a natural consequence of the utter shambles that is both parties' policies on childcare funding. They can't make up their mind whether they are funding early years education (in which case it makes sense that it's term time only, but each child should be entitled to the same period) or childcare costs (in which case it makes sense that it starts from a fixed age point, but should be year round).

As an aside, it's also worth noting that, in areas where pressure on pre-school places is highest (e.g. my old area of London), children are often only accepted into the pre-schools for the academic year before they start school. So in that sense the playing field is level. Even in areas of the country where this isn't the case, many pre-schools have to prohibit children from joining part way through the year (because it requires holding the place open with no income for a big chunk of the year if the child doesn't start until Christmas or Easter), so again it is the affluent who manage to 'access' the right to that term or two terms, because they can self-fund from September until the funding kicks in.

Obviously the above refers to pre-schools rather than people who apply the 15 hours to their bill at a nursery. But there the younger children aren't losing the benefit of the time at the nursery in the same way.

Actually, as a December born, your DS would have been entitled to 5 terms of preschool, a delayed summerborn 6 terms, just one term more, whereas a summerborn entering at the expected age of just-turned-4 would have had 3 terms of preschool -

I'm not sure where you are going with this exactly. So your delayed summerborn gets 6 terms, but a January child gets 4. The maths always means someone loses out. The current system means your child gets two fewer terms than the 'best off'. Your solution means the a Spring child gets two fewer terms than the best off. You've just shifted the disadvantage around.

What really, really would not help my DS - given that he is December born, is to have a third of his class be both the academic year older and significantly more able than him due to their extra time at preschool

Actually, as a December born, your DS would have been entitled to 5 terms of preschool, a delayed summerborn 6 terms, just one term more, whereas a summerborn entering at the expected age of just-turned-4 would have had 3 terms of preschool - two less than your DS. That is really not going to help a summerborn is it - do you see why we find it unfair?

It does feel like there is a general consensus that reception year should be more like nursery (schools seem to vary greatly) and there should be much less pressure on 4 year olds to perform to expectation dreamt up by government? Curriculum should reflect the fact that lots of the children are still very young and then the summer borns have more time before heading into formal learning?
Problem is that the system is obsessed with league tables and tests it would appear

I am also a longstanding mner, since my DS1 was born 7 and a half years ago.

I support the summer born campaign for a number of reasons:

1. Children do not have to be at school until the term after they turn 5 in England. Why can't they start in reception at CSA?

2. The masses of studies that have shown how harmful it can be to teach 'formal' schooling before a child is ready

3. We have one of the youngest school starting ages in the world and perform much worse than countries who have more of a kindergarten approach until 6 or 7

4. The curriculum is getting tougher and tougher and more focused on the 3 Rs.

5. We are introducing testing earlier and grouping according to ability. I believe their confidence will be impacted before they're even ready, before they've even begun.

All of these show how harmful our education system can be on the confidence and long term mental well being of our children. I hear stories of children at SATs ages not sleeping and having nightmares. We are putting our children under too much pressure too soon.

I fundamentally feel that just turned 4 is too young to start formal schooling (and yes, I think reception, whilst it includes more play, is still 'formal schooling').

I massively agree with increasing the school starting age.
I also massively agree that summerborns are the most affected from all of the above.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

This isn't about being the youngest in the year. It's about (some) just turned 4 year olds just not being ready for school.

Sorry to be late to the party – long standing Mumsnetter – naice ham, penis beaker etc. I have been following this thread for several days but have sadly been too busy dealing with the fallout from primary admissions from 2009. Yes that's right 2009. That is the problem with getting primary admissions wrong for an individual child - there is no flexibility in the state system to get it right later.

A number of posters talk about "developmental delays" being a good reason for delay. These are almost impossible to identify at age 3 and many are not assessed until much later. In the current climate diagnoses and support for children with special needs, spld or other, are very lengthy and difficult to obtain. I had to apply for primary school when my child was 3 years & 4 months old. I believed there were some issues - he is now 9 1/2 and I still don't have a full diagnosis. Some of his learning difficulties were formally diagnosed in Yr 4 - my DS had by this time had several years of being bullied and teased- the damage to his self esteem may never be repaired. The good to outstanding local village state primary failed to address these issues. They tried with other issues - my DS had almost exclusive support from the class TA. Shame that TA couldn't be used to support other children in the class.

So 6 years on from our primary admission, full of hope and joy that DS was going to the local state primary, I have just signed papers for him to go to a private specialist school. The extra year would have given my DS a better start. His learning needs wouldnt have changed but at least they wouldn't have been dismissed as me being PFB and DS being an immature summer-born.

I campaign for FLEXIBLE admissions for summer-borns because I don't want any other family in this country to go through what we went through. If your child is ready to go to school then great you have options but I your child isn't ready then you don't. The academic research clearly demonstrates the gap in attainment between autumn borns and summer borns. Similar attainment issues are dealt with, and quite rightly, by government policy (eg for black boys).

There have been some really good points on this thread about a later compulsory starting age for all children, a fair and equal admissions process for all children, less formal testing in reception. Let's hope there is some change going forward. I would be less concerned if as a country we did well in international education comparisons for students leaving school age 16-18 but we don't do well. The rot in our system starts very early on.

Don't get me wrong. I really wish LAd could just open new schools themselves but they can't. I would rather not have Free schools. There are no doubt some freaky free schools but a lot are in fact run by established education groups - certainly in my LA they all are

the free school thing, in conjunction with the restrictions placed on the LEA, is just bollocks. I genuinely have no idea why this is thought to be a good idea. I mean I can just about get my head around, "what if anyone could set up a school?" (not that I agree with it - but I can see why some people would). I cannot remotely get to why it should be at the expense of the LEA's educational activities.

I think the free school thing is fine if set up by credible people. Near us two long established private schools are going to convert to free schools. One other is set up by a top private school . Two are set up by excellent local academy schools. One community free school is by local parents and educational trust,

I completely distrust the free school system - there's too much potential for those with religious or personal agendas to set up their own little kingdoms. The LA system isnt perfect but at least they are accountable to the general public.

Our biggest issue right now is the restrictions on local authorities to build new schools because they need to prioritise free schools and academies. I don't want some unknown entity schooling my children, I just want a good local school.
Our area is totally oversubscribed for primary school places and yet funding is going to free schools and academies wherever they choose to pop up.
This is utterly infuriating.
We are within 450m of two acceptable primary schools and yet unlikely to get into either because of a huge population boom in our area and massive oversubscription as a result.
I really feel this whole idea if 'choice' is a farce which adds immensely to parental stress.
The Scottish system sounds far superior from what I've read on here.