Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

If you had any idea what the summerborn campaign actually did you wouldn't be saying what you are. The campaigners selflessly work with and help ALL families no matter what. The group will help anyone, will welcome anyone and campaigners will often sit up all hours helping families that need it write letters, contact admissions authorities, anything.

That has nothing to do with the campaign being socially regressive.

End May DC here.

I would support a campaign to reverse the curriculum changes that have just been put in place from Year One onwards. I would not support a general campaign to allow greater deferrals where there are not significant development delays.

I think all children, not just summer born children, would benefit from a much more gradual transition from EYFS to formal learning.

Ah, it wasn't me that said that!

Pax

You know what, however you dress it up, your campaign for 'summerborns' basically boils down to "I don't want my child to start at 4, so fix it for my child, and other children like my child whose parents are engaged and affluent enough to take advantage. I can't be arsed to campaign more widely because it's too hard and I don't really care that it is a socially regressive move

If you had any idea what the summerborn campaign actually did you wouldn't be saying what you are. The campaigners selflessly work with and help ALL families no matter what. The group will help anyone, will welcome anyone and campaigners will often sit up all hours helping families that need it write letters, contact admissions authorities, anything.

The campaign also works closely with other early childhood campaigners promoting a wide variety of issues that are effecting children.

I know for a fact the campaign would warmly welcome helping anybody.

bemybebe - socially regressive isn't about whether some children benefit from starting at 4. It is socially regressive because, in the group to whom it applies, it will benefit the affluent and educated and further disadvantage the already disadvantaged and disengaged.

I am not aggressive, sorry if it came that way Yoni!

I wanted to point out that the report is by the Government, Department of Education to be precise. I am not commenting on you calling it "a profoundly silly measure dreamt up by people who haven't given any thought to what child development actually looks like", but I am not to be drawn into defending its methodology, I am not in a position to do so.

Or it would have benefitted my son. He's quite happy in y1 having started reception at just turned 4.

Rdutton, I imagine many of your respondents have children born between 1 April and 31 August. It's not an us and them discussion.

I have a late August born DS and I'm totally against the campaign on the basis that it does not solve the problem and, instead, makes things worse for those most vulnerable.

Yes, it would benefit my son. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

"I don't really care that it is a socially regressive move."

I don't believe it is socially regressive move! I believe that some children will benefit hugely from starting school at 4.

Not sure why you are being aggressive towards me, be. I thanked you for your link and commented on its contents.

Rdutton, who will be judging which children born after 31/3 should go to reception when they are 5 point something rather than 4 point something, if it's not an objective test? Currently all children other than those born in the first week of September are 4 point something at the start of term.

Welp, judging by the campaigning techniques deployed by the summerborn crowd on this thread, I think we can all rest easy that their campaign isn't going to be successful anytime soon

That's really sad to hear and I'm sorry you feel that way. It's so so heartbreaking for so many summer born families and children. Some children are ripped out of their year group and made to skip a year (at any point) this has been so so damaging for some children, even their classmates.

We just want a stop to this that's all. The campaign has already been very successful and many MPs and early years experts back the campaign.

I'm sorry that you feel our 'techniques' have upset you in anyway, that would never be anyone's intention. We (i) just wanted to share how hard the admissions process is. I really hope we all just get what we feel is in our children's, all children's best interests.

Should not it be "summer-born" anyway? With a hyphen? English is not my first language, so I would love to know.

I'm not being pedantic. I'm saying that your context implied you weren't using the defined term.

You know what, however you dress it up, your campaign for 'summerborns' basically boils down to "I don't want my child to start at 4, so fix it for my child, and other children like my child whose parents are engaged and affluent enough to take advantage. I can't be arsed to campaign more widely because it's too hard and I don't really care that it is a socially regressive move."

No. It shows that I am a lawyer by training and that, when someone uses a legally defined term, I'd expect them to write it as used in the legislation. When they use slightly different wording, which their context implies has a different meaning, I won't assume that they are using the term as legally defined

I think you are just being pedantic, I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.

What?

Compulsory school age is just that, the age by which a child has to be in some form of education. That's all it is. It isn't a guide to the age at which the average child starts school. It says nothing about the school year in which parents must be permitted to place them. It just says you've got to be in school (or other education) by that point. It is, as I have accurately described it, a long stop date.

Penguins there is primary legislation in this country.

Compulsory school age is set out in section 8 of the Education Act 1996 and the Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998. A child reaches compulsory school age on the prescribed day following his or her fifth birthday (or on his or her fifth birthday if it falls on a prescribed day). The prescribed days are 31 December, 31 March and 31 August.

You are telling me that The point is that focusing on compulsory school age is a misdirection. It isn't the age children start school in this country. It's a long stop date.

You are ignoring the law.

Welp, judging by the campaigning techniques deployed by the summerborn crowd on this thread, I think we can all rest easy that their campaign isn't going to be successful anytime soon.

No Yonic.

I'm proposing a school admissions code that is clear, fair and objective.

Lawyer by training that ignores the laws? That is a novel thought!

In what way am I ignoring the law?

Our local primary is an academy and gives priority to children living in the village over siblings. Many of the local schools give priority to siblings over location, which is fine if you've already got a child at the school but not so fine if you haven't. My friend's nearest school is a 2 form intake and last year an entire class was made up of siblings. Many parents rent nearby to get one child into the school and then move once they've got a place, knowing they'll be able to get younger siblings in without any bother. Which last year meant that my friend's daughter didn't get into her local school and now has a 20 min drive to school.
Our local school is rated outstanding so it's oversubscribed in any event. In previous years those living in the village have always got in, but this year the village preschool has got 31 children going to school in September and there are only 30 places at the school, so someone will likely be disappointed.
I really think it makes sense to look at location and siblings together. If you live close to the relevant school and have a sibling there, it should be a no brainer, but IMO children who live nearest the school should get priority over children who live further away but have a sibling there. It might stop people moving into areas for a short period and then moving out again once they've got a place. Gone are the days when you just put your name down and went to your nearest school.

Lawyer by training that ignores the laws? That is a novel thought!

Yoni as I said, I am relying on government own figures, I am not in position to defend their methodology, so anything on that front you can direct to the authors of the report, not me.

Don't campaign for those with the sharpest elbows to be given extra room to swing them.

Yes, this exactly, Calamitously, thank you.

Be, that's from the report you linked!

Rdutton, are you proposing an objective test of readiness?