Live webchat with Sir Jim Rose, Tues 2 Feb, 1-2pm

[GeraldineMumsnet]

After our webchat with Ed Balls last September, another thread started about summer-born babies and on it you asked us to try to get Sir Jim Rose along for his own webchat.

We're really pleased to say that he's coming to the Towers on Tues 2 Feb from 1pm. It's his first-ever webchat, he admits to being a social networking novice and is bringing along a typist, so please be patient!

Sir Jim was formerly Her Majesty's Inspector and Director of Inspection for OFSTED. He retired in 1999 and since has acted as a consultant to the DFES on nursery and primary education. He has led several independent reviews, including early reading, the primary curriculum, and teaching and dyslexia.

As ever, if you can't make it on the day, please post your questions here.

Thank you for coming Sir Jim - I am a mother and 2 and student teacher. I have been very interested to read your reccomendations. I am delighted that the structure of the new curriculum is much less presciptive and will allow for greater flexibility and creativity. I am specialising in PSHCE and it looks from the structure of the new curriculum that there will be a lot more 'space' for ongoing PSHCE - am I correct? Hopefully my specialism will help me get a job when I graduate in light of the new curriculum! Liking your work by the way [suck-up]

The policy of allowing Scottish children to have a flexible start date has been well accepted by parents and teachers. Why do you think that it is not appropriate for English schools.

I know of children that were born at 24 weeks gestation in August. It seems wrong that parents, health care professionals and nursery teachers are not consulted on when these vulnerable children start school.

Caramel and Pixie

Thank you for your questions on languages. A modern foreign language will become compulsory from year 3 onwards from September 2011. Schools can choose which language or languages to offer. At the moment just over 90% of primary schools provide some form of language learning, but from next year it will be part of the primary National Curriculum for the first time.

Hi Nessarose. This is why the Dyslexia Review calls for early identification and a well prepared plan so that children with different degrees of dyslexia and learning difficulties can be fully supported. All of this should be greatly helped by the additional training for specialist teachers which is now in the pipeline.

Cross posted! I am glad that starting school at four worked well for your granddaughter, but it would make sense to treat children as individuals. Every child is different, and there are many children that struggle in school at four.

paranoid - He hasn't even really engaged in any debate re: summer borns. He just referred to a report (which I can't find) from an organisation (NFER) who previously considered an early start to school was not the answer for summer borns - there you go.....But his prem grandchild is fine so your's will be ok too!!

I applaud that MFL will be compulsory form 2011 but how are state schools going to fund take on specialist teachers Sir Jim?

Hi scheneebly, thanks for your post. Personal development including all aspects of Personal, Social, Health Education (PSHE) should now be on a much firmer and more manageable footing in primary schools, so I am sure your specialism will be well regarded. I hope you enjoy your teaching career ? wise choice!

Boobmeister

Thanks for your question about the Cambridge Primary Review. I was asked about this a great deal during my Review. The Cambridge Review was not set up by the government, it was a review led by Professor Robin Alexander of the University of Cambridge and funded by the Esmee Fairburn Foundation. Robin and I are former colleagues from way back.

Robin?s was a wide ranging review which looked at the whole of primary education. I was asked by the government to review the primary curriculum and set out the detail of what all children should be taught at primary school from September 2011. As part of this I was asked to consider particular concerns around summer-born children.

I met Robin during my review and we agree on many points in relation to the primary curriculum. On school starting age we both agree that what is most important is not whether children should start school at five or six, but making sure that whenever they do, they get a high quality and suitable experience no matter what their age. Rather than having a cliff edge at any age children need a gradual transition from informal or play based learning to formal education. My proposals for the primary curriculum do that. The new curriculum is organised around 6 broad areas of learning, similar to the Early Years Foundation Stage and provides for more less formal, more play-based learning in years 1 and 2.

But Sir Jim - your granddaughter was a success story and I am pleased to hear it. Mine and many others have not been. I cannot begin to describe the anguish this has caused over the years. You have not given a reason why it would not be preferable to give parents the CHOICE to defer in these cases, particularly where there is extreme prematurity. Of course parents should have the choice to send their premature child to school at 3.75 yrs but they should also have the choice to defer . By deferring I am not talking about a child starting a year later and going into Yr1. I am talking about starting them in the year they should have started had they been born on time

Hi Sir Jim,

In the broadest sense, how should the performance of primary schools be evaluated, and what needs to change to make evaluations more meaningful?

Also, can you please answer all the questions above about why inspections aren't random?

Thanks.

"On school starting age we both agree that what is most important is not whether children should start school at five or six, but making sure that whenever they do, they get a high quality and suitable experience no matter what their age."

Summer born parents would love their children to start at five. Neither of my children celebrated their 5th birthday during reception. They turned 5 in the summer holidays before Y1.

But Sir Jim - your granddaughter was a success story and I am pleased to hear it. Mine and many others have not been. I cannot begin to describe the anguish this has caused over the years. You have not given a reason why it would not be preferable to give parents the CHOICE to defer in these cases, particularly where there is extreme prematurity. Of course parents should have the choice to send their premature child to school at 3.75 yrs but they should also have the choice to defer . By deferring I am not talking about a child starting a year later and going into Yr1. I am talking about starting them in the year they should have started had they been born on time

Sorry - didnt mean to post twice

Hi jackstarbright. The important principle is to provide as much flexibility as possible so that children get the degree of support and stimulation that they need to make a good start. There is considerably more flexibility and choice in what is proposed than many seem to think. Looking at this on a case by case basis seems to me to be the best way to proceed. I shall be making the case for deferral in response to an earlier post shortly.

To: backtolingle
Thanks for your earlier question. It is very important to be clear about what the recommendation 14 actually says, which is that the preferred pattern of entry to reception classes should be the September immediately following a child?s fourth birthday. However, this should be subject to well-informed discussion with parents, taking into account their views of a child?s maturity and readiness to enter reception class. Arrangements should be such as to make entry to reception class an exciting and enjoyable experience for all children, with opportunities for flexible arrangements such as a period of part-time attendance if judged appropriate.

The intention is to provide as much flexibility as possible to achieve the best outcomes for children. Your son has clearly thrived as a result of your decision. The recommendation recognises that there are exceptions as you suggest.

As Lingle is not here, I am going to repost her question. Can I call Lingle MN Royalty on this issue? Anyway, it was Lingle who campaigned to have you on the web chat.

By backtolingle Mon 01-Feb-10 18:56:02
Sir Jim, it was my idea to invite you so please do answer my question about year-deferral for summer-borns.

I know that many education experts have urged you without success to change your mind on the summer-born deferral issue.

Will you at least agree that for some summer-born children whose delays are in the area of social communication skills, it is critical that parents should be able to follow professional advice to change the child's peer group at an early age as part of the early intervention programme?

When my August-born son's language and social communication struggles became painfully evident upon starting state school nursery at 3, we sought advice from:

1. the school's headteacher
2. the nursery manager
3. Bradford LEA's specialist Special Needs support coordinator
4. An NHS specialist senior speech therapist
5. An NHS consultant paediatrician

All of them - ALL of them - urged us to take advantage of Bradford's policy allowing us, as of right - to repeat his nursery year and start reception at 5 years old, with his education to be offset throughout his school career. None of them - NONE of them, thought that a "play-based curriculum" in reception would be better for him. He needed to practice his immature social skills with a peer group whose social skills more closely matched his own. No curriculum change could achieve that.

My son has blossomed in his "repeat" nursery year. From being in a position 12 months ago where Bradford LEA were urging us to seek a Statement as soon as possible, we are now in a position where his language and social skills are peer appropriate, and because he is with the right peers, his progress is very fast. His life-chances have been transformed by this simplest and cheapest of "interventions" in the right setting, and the taxpayer's money spent on the extra nursery year has been saved many times over because he will not now need 1-to-1 support when he starts reception at 5 years old in September.

However, because of your report, Bradford has now reversed its policy on summer-born deferral. Other children like mine won't get this chance in life. Unless, that is, you are willing to recognise that there are exceptions to every rule, and that there are some special children for whom year-deferral is a critical intervention.

I await your response.

Def X posted

Sir Jim - you talk a lot about flexibility and making sure the education is appropriate for your child - you seem to imply that in some cases it may be appropriate to delay entry to reception (ie 'repeat' a year at nursery), however it is my understanding that, partly because of your report, this flexibility does not exist in practice.

Could you enlarge on what 'flexibility' you actually mean? What would you actually suggest to the parents of a premature summer born boy who did not feel he was ready for formal education and would prefer him to enter reception a year later?

Further to my last post I should have added that in the case of Bradford's policy there is nothing to stop the LA from allowing children to start their reception year at age 5. And every LA has a duty to provide places for all children. The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile is an evidenced based design which enables teachers and practitioners to plan and assess children?s progress up to the age of 5. It recognises that all children develop at different rates and uses observational assessment by practitioners to monitor their progress.

The changes in the Primary Curriculum and guidance being produced on transition will help ensure a smoother experience for children and a sharing of information between the two stages will ensure each child is given the support they need. I still think we can achieve this through play because as evidence shows that?s how children learn best.

Thank you for joining us Sir Jim, I am the parent of two children, the oldest of whom is about to enter primary school.

I'm very concerned about the focus on using IT in the primary years coming at the expense of communication through the more active methods of handwriting and drawing, or other subjects such as art, history, geography or even sports.

Could you please explain how an observation such as "ICT can make the unique contribution of strengthening each of the areas of learning, and literacy and numeracy" naturally leads to the conclusion that "ICT should therefore be at the core of the primary curriculum."

PixieOnaleaf

I am sorry that was your experience. I think that was possibly more a reflection of the school's approach rather than what the primary curriculum requires. The existing primary curriculum for English contains many opportunities for story telling, role play, drama and literature covering a wide range of fiction and poetry. I certainly saw fantastic examples of this happening in schools I visited. Creativity should, of course, run through the whole curriculum ? it is just as important to be creative in maths as in English. I hope that the proposals I have put forward to make the primary curriculum more manageable for schools will allow them to be even more creative in order to make the most of the unrivalled zest for learning children have in their primary years.

Hi mateykatie,

I?m not able to speak for Ofsted but I know that they are in close contact with DCSF. For example, in the recent review of school assessment they were represented on the expert group appointed by the Secretary of State. This group recommended a wide range evaluations, including a balanced report card on the school as a whole.

Thanks

Jim

Thank you for your reply Sir Jim.

Five hours of activity each week. In private education perhaps but not, in my experience, in state. Still it's good to know that OFSTED should be taking notice of physical activity. Perhaps we will start to see an improvement in some schools over the next few years.