Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

What parents of summer borns want is flexibility. Parents know their children best and can confidently say if their child is ready for the pressures that Reception year entails.

Many summer borns will be ready to start school before they turn 5. That's fine. That's their parents' choice! However, the ones who aren't should be given the choice of starting later. Everyone is different and ALL parents know that children mature at different rate.

It's not for everyone, I understand, respect and support that.

I also wasn't aware of the 'name rule'. So forgive me for not being very creative.

Surrey has the closest school factor. It works for those who move into an area as then you have some certainty. But in towns if there are schools 300m, 500m and 700m away I think it's a bit of a nonsense. A friend of mine didn't get the school 300m away even though it was her closest as it was full of siblings and a few closer to it than her. So it's no guarantee.

Given that those on benefits are being forced to find work "once their youngest child is at school" one has to wonder whether that would be a factor - either a young child being forced to start at 4.0 so the parent can be forced to go out to work, or forced to defer to 5.5 so the parent doesn't have to work. Either situation could disadvantage a child with zero reference to his maturity or ability.

Oh gosh yes. Somewhere in London has a big issue with 'closest school' don't they? Can't remember which boroughs.

talkingofmichaelangelo - I am not an early years expert. But the report that has been linked to suggests most countries have some degree of attainment gap between oldest and youngest at the point of standardised tests.

On the specific question of being ready for formal education, I suspect you could find evidence to suggest that a general delay is beneficial, or not harmful. Many countries start their education later than we do.

Tiggy - On your last point, I agree. That can also be an issue not because of academies but because adjoining authorities or boroughs have different policies.

The same issue also arises on the difference between route as the crow flies and closest walking route when talking about people who live on borders.

Can any Early Years experts on this thread say whether all of these problems would go away if: instead of parents of different children being able to pick and choose whether they would start with their cohort or delay (thereby opening up a 17 month gap); all children, the whole cohort, were to start later?

In general (I am not an expert) it seems to me that some 4 year olds are very definitely struggling with reception (not just the very young ones); but this all seems to have disappeared by 5 and a half, definitely 6, except in very exceptional cases. We wouldn't have to "special snowflake" anyone, if we just accepted that 4 is painfully early. Is that right?

Couldn't we just have lovely jolly optional but free state nurseries instead of school until they are about 6?

You've said this many times, and been answered many times.

You keep saying that what we want would disadvantage the vulnerable in society, but this completely misses the point that the CURRENT, EXISTING summer born policy and 2014 Code is ALREADY doing this.

There now ARE summer born children entering Reception class at compulsory school age; therefore the chronological age gap HAS been increased to a 17 month window in a growing number of schools over the past few years.

There are a currently some 'summer' babies, mostly August babies (not April ones) joining school in reception at just turned five (not 5.5). You've talked again, and again, about how difficult it is to convince the relevant decision makers to allow it. When you say it's going on now, it's for small numbers who have convinced people it's in the child's best interests.

That is not the same as opening the policy up to anyone, simply because they want little Johnny to be 11.5 when he sits his 11+ and 16.5 when he does his GCSEs.

My DC2 is ready to start school this year. Would she be ready if most of her contemporaries were waiting a year and lots of children were up to 5.5? No. So, like many, many middle class, educated parents, I'd defer her. So instead of being a few children who are 'old' for their year, it would end up being the vulnerable who were 'young' for their year.

I'm really not going to get into a debate about Alberta. Lots of countries have very different admission policies to ours. Those policies have to be seen in the context of the population density, the pressure on school places, the structure of schooling as a whole (when does formal learning start, do you move through the years automatically or by assessment, etc), the format of teaching and learning and many other factors. As for Gove loving Alberta, well suffice to say that's no endorsement to me coming from a family of teachers.

A change in the school starting age is one issue, but we HAVE a compulsory school age of the term following a child's 5th birthday already - we just want all children to be able to use it without penalty (I include autumn and spring born children here too because many of their parents would like a January start or part-time attendance but their requests are refused).

You keep saying that what we want would disadvantage the vulnerable in society, but this completely misses the point that the CURRENT, EXISTING summer born policy and 2014 Code is ALREADY doing this.

There now ARE summer born children entering Reception class at compulsory school age; therefore the chronological age gap HAS been increased to a 17 month window in a growing number of schools over the past few years.

This is the reality.

Much of this discussion is taking place as though the above isn't happening at all and shouldn't be allowed to happen. It IS, but what I want to see is ALL parents of summer born children having this option, and not just those lucky enough to be applying to willing head teachers and administrators - or lucky enough to be able to fight with copious correspondence, often solicitors' involvement - or in the end opting for private education in a school that will allow it or home education.

If we really care about the disadvantaged in society MNHQ then this has to become an automatic right and the information needs to be widely disseminated. Otherwise it really is only the children of the most financially able and educated who will have access.

Also, what we're asking for has been described as 'socially regressive' in this thread. Well flexible admissions with a wide age gap is how it's done in Alberta, Canada, and they have some of the best educational outcomes in the world (as cited by Gove in three speeches). I wouldn't call that socially regressive.

Finally, on the point of law, this is not just about compulsory school age; I focus on this a great deal because the truth is that many parents and teachers don't even know what it is, and that's been a big part of the problem. There are many other points of law that support what we are asking for; for example, decisions being made in the best interests of the child. And I maintain that forcing a child to miss a year of school against a parent's wishes is not in their best interests.

If the cut off for all was 31/3 then there would still be a 12m age range in the classroom. The youngest, however, would not be disadvantaged for the simple reason that the extra 6m would mean that most of them would be as school-ready as most of their cohort.

"statistically gives a better chance of higher educational outcomes " instead of "clearly", I meant!

And if it had been an option to defer DC1, yes, we'd've done it. Not because of lack of readiness, but because it clearly gives a better chance of higher educational outcomes and we could have paid daycare for another year readily.

I fully acknowledge this would have been a self centred not a society centred decision

Currently DC1 is one of the youngest.

If the rule changed to 31/3 cut off DC2 would be one of the youngest.

I'd rather dc1 was the youngest in a class with a 12 month age range than dc2 was in a class with a 17 month age range.

I'd be easy if dc2 was the youngest in a class with a 12m age range ie if the cut off for all was 31/3 not 31/8.

And, even if all of the above wasn't a problem, the campaign would simply push the problem on to other people's children (specifically those with march birthdays).

The campaign for parents of summer born children cannot be for everyone because not all children are summer born.

Your solution makes that worse, not better, hence is socially regressive.

You will end up with, at one end of the spectrum, the 5.5 year old whose parents deferred for no reason other than the benefit of being the oldest. At the other, the 4 year and 1 day old from a chaotic home.

Yes, affluent and educated parents are more able to battle the system now. If your aim was simply that there should be more support for parents with a child with a developmental delay or prematurity which puts them out of year group, I would be with you.

But your aim simply allows those affluent parents a blank slate. Even worse than the current situation.

Penguins the status quo is "benefit the affluent and educated and further disadvantage the already disadvantaged and disengaged"... LAs made all sort of hoops for parents to jump through in order to grant permission to enter reception at CSA. That is WHAT IS HAPPENING now.

Educated, well-off (because getting private reports and GP letters and all sorts of "evidence" costs money), articulate, confident enough to stand up to the authority, have time and/or live an a more understanding LA admisisons team (postcode lottery) are already being able to defer their children as it was the case.

Now, the only way to remove such a distortion is to allow all parents to defer. if they wish Some will, some won't.

I believe doing nothing about the current situation is socially regressive.

That's nice, RDutton, but you don't seem to understand the barriers to the families of the most vulnerable kids knowing anything about this, much less having you sit down wjth them for a chat and a bit of form-filling.

^^ This. Absolutely this. I do understand that you are well meaning. But the reality is that a policy change like this will leave behind the poorest, the most chaotic, the least educationally engaged. It will leave behind the families who, financially speaking, couldn't begin to consider a later start date. It will leave behind the families who have low literacy and throw the well meaning leaflet sent with the admission pack straight into the bin. It will leave behind the most vulnerable.

To not leave behind the most vulnerable, there would need to be some form of automatic assessment of children within, say, the bottom half of the year. Which would also have many of your supporters complaining when their perfectly able child was told that they should start at 4.5 and not 5.5.

ArcheryAnnie

If you've never heard of this campaign please have a look at
the sumerborn website, it may help you understand it a little more.

However, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion and if it's a campaign that you don't agree with that's fine, you don't have too. That's your choice.

Other parents just want to make their choice too without being penalised and made to miss a year of education.

Ah, really sorry Yoni Pax indeed

It absolutely does. The campaign is working to get this widespread, so help is there for all families (that want to do this) so it's easier and more accessible to families. Even if that means amending admissions authorities incorrect legislation so parents are aware of their rights which is often the first hurdle.

I do understand the barriers for families with the most vulnerable children because I work with them on a daily basis, professional and voluntary.

If the code and the system wasn't so difficult then vulnerable families would find it easier.

At the start of this thread I had never heard of this campaign, halfway through this thread I thought eh, not my thing but let them get on with it, and now 26 pages in, I'm hoping this prime example of middle-class elbow-sharpening actively fails to get any policy changes made whatsoever.

You might want to rethink your campaigning strategy, people.

That's nice, RDutton, but you don't seem to understand the barriers to the families of the most vulnerable kids knowing anything about this, much less having you sit down wjth them for a chat and a bit of form-filling. I've already said I had never even heard of your campaign when my DS was at his primary (70% FSM), and it's those schoolmatea of his from there who are exactly the children who would be left behind.

On curriculum changes, my concern is the ramp up in expectations from Year One onwards. My DC is in the guinea pig year of the changes. The children are really being pushed and a lot of them just aren't ready. That's got to be doing a lot of damage to their confidence.