Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

Why not campaign for reception to be more appropriate to just turned 4 year olds instead? If policy expects children to start school a day or two after their 4th birthday, then school should be suitable for them.

The whole 'choice' thing is a complete red herring. Lots of parents don't actually have any genuine choice. The people doing the choosing will disproportionately be the already advantaged looking to secure further advantage for their children; those for whom there is no real choice will disproportionately be the most vulnerable families who really don't need yet another disadvantage.

Parents of summer born children already have choices. They can have their child start reception at just 4. They can delay the start to later in the year. Or they can choose to have their child start Y1 once they react compulsory school age. Those are choices. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't choices. My DS1 will have one less year of schooling than he'd otherwise be entitled to because we moved from Scotland to England and he has a June birthday. That is just the way the system works. There's no point wailing about how he's missed out on some perceived entitlement to a number of years at school, because that's no actually how it works.

A small number of people required to prove genuine need for deferral (and I totally agree that this could be made clearer and more transparent) is in no way the same as anyone with an average or even above average summer born child having the right to defer. Not least because those deferring would actually, and demonstrably, be developmentally delayed so the age difference wouldn't matter. The fact is, it would routinely be used by pushy MC parents of perfectly able April born children looking to give their child the best advantage they can. That is not something I think we should be encouraging.

Ice - on the sex thing,are there many state single sex primaries? I agree, but have never come across any.

Well done, tiggy.

I can be passionate in defending a system that I think is broadly right from those who want to change it. But I think t1lly is on a mission to distract with that one.

The last question was "would you like to see changes to the allocation system"

My answer would be yes, I would like to see racial, class and religious discrimination removed from it....I ask for gender too but I already have the moon on a stick.

Current system rubbish, there should be a similar set up to Scotland. With an opt out clause for faith schools - atheists shouldn't be sent to a faith school, but they should pay their own transport.

If DS doesn't get into our (nearest) only choice primary we're home schooling.

Nope, but as MN has been asked for this set of opinions, I'm assuming someone is monitoring the balance of responses on the thread...

I have just returned to this thread. It been totally hijacked by the SB campaign. Was that really the original question ?!?!?!? I think not

Totally, Penguins. If reception/Y1/Y2 aren't fit for purpose for 5/12 of the cohort because too much is expected for ones of their years, the problem is either the initial starting age or the content of the curriculum. The problem doesn't get solved by individual parents deciding to disadvantage the children in the year below their 'standard' cohort.

That was agreeing with Yonic. Cross post

"genuinely don't see how it would make it worse"

Because classes would have a spread of ages of 17 months, and shifted summer borns don't just become 'average' in the new class - they become the oldest. They become the beneficiaries of the effect.

I would agree with that. My biggest issue is that I would like to see YR, and also Y1 less formal. I don't like Gove's direction of change.

genuinely don't see how it would make it worse. Not all will delay - the thing of the effect just being shifted to spring won't happen. You wouldn't get CSA children being forced straight into Y1, which is happening at the moment. You would take a step in the right direction.
Are you actively campaigning for other measures to be brought in then? An increase in NEF hours for poorer families? What would you like to see, and what are you doing to try to make it a reality?

I said upthread - DC1 is summer born and got on fine. Nonetheless, if it had been my free choice to delay him, I would have done so, because I could pay for another year of childcare and it would result in him being in the statistically strongest position within his cohort i.e. the oldest in the year.

I am pro the system staying broadly as it is, would be relaxed about a 31/3 cut off so all start school at least 4.5 years old (which presumably you would support too?) and would also think it fair if there is an opportunity for parents to apply for delayed entry subject to some kind of standard test/assessment. The assessment would have to confirm that the child would have a significant likelihood of struggling more in their age group than an average summer born (perhaps caused by ongoing effects of prematurity or infant illness).

It wouldn't be making it "less imperfect", it would be making it worse. That is why I disagree.

15 hours of funding is all very well, but it is a lot less than school and doesn't come with any chance of wrap around breakfast clubs etc.

Tiggy has expressed very clearly why it isn't a good idea.

some summer born children will be ready to start at 4 - my older daughter would have been. They're not all going to delay. But yes, I agree the system is imperfect. I don't see why that should stop us making it slightly less imperfect. One step at a time. What are you doing to improve the system? I would genuinely be interested to know. You are obviously passionate about the subject. It would be a shame for that passion not be put to good use :)

"show lots of children (and thus society as a whole tiggytape) are suffering due to the summer born effect"

If all summer born children started in the year behind, do you honestly not think there would be a 'spring born' effect?

I'm a member of the summer born group. I've been a member of mums net for ages.
I have been told my summer born son can start age 5 in reception. Yes, I am educated and middle class, and yes I agree that if you are poor and socially disadvantaged, you probably would have struggled to get that agreement from the LA.
But then change the system! Communicate the fact that children don't have to start until they're 5. Communicate the fact to lower income families that you still get your 15 hours NEF until 5 - rather than being told by the LA, as I was, that it would be taken away if I didn't send my child at 4.
I am not choosing to delay my son's entry from any parental competitiveness. He will just not benefit from being in school just 4.
I genuinely don't get why some people feel so threatened or worried or whatever it is, about the summer born campaign, when there is so much robust academic research that show lots of children (and thus society as a whole tiggytape) are suffering due to the summer born effect.

Nailed it, tiggy.

There is no 'name rule ' I simply commented that it was pretty clear that people had been summoned on facebook or similar when loads of new posters turn up with a similar format of name that isn't a common style on here.

I don't think a later start date solves the summer born issue - when children are very young, 12 months of difference is a high percebtage of their lives. So the effect would probably reduce a little but not disappear if it was a 4.5-5.5 age spread in reception.

I'm all for a later school start date and I imagine that yes it would solve the summerborn issue, but I think the chances of that happening are extremely slim. Would a later start date appeal to the masses though? I imagine not?

"Parents know their children best and can confidently say if their child is ready for the pressures that Reception year entails. "

Why not campaign instead to reduce the "pressures" of reception year? Or to say that as not all 4 year olds can cope with such pressures, let's make the cut off 31/3 for all.

You cannot ignore that there is a financial element to the ability to start school a year later and it will therefore be influenced by affordability as well as assessment.