Primary school admissions - MNHQ needs your thoughts!

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

We've been asked (in advance of primary school places allocation announcements in England, Wales and NI next week) for MNers' thoughts on the current systems for allocating primary places - so as ever we thought we'd come to you for your insights.

What do you think about how your LA allocates places? Have you found the process stressful? Do you think the difficulty/stress varies widely across the nation - and if so, which locations are particularly difficult and which are relatively stress-free? If you're in Scotland, where the system is different, do you think it works well (or not?) Would you support a change to the allocation system - and if so, how would you like to see it changed?

Any thoughts welcome. Best of luck to anyone waiting to hear about their child's place.

ArcheryAnnie- when I was referring to not believing children were less deserving I was actually responding to a question that Jassy had asked me.

By supporting faith selections, you are saying you think people of the 'right' religion/congregation should have priority over others in accessing local education. There is no other way of viewing it. For you, a discriminatory system is convenient and beneficial. For others, including Catholics in other areas, it is the opposite.

there would be no point in sending your child to a faith school if you had no intention of following the faith.

Well, apart from getting your child into a local school, where faith schools are the only or main options, especially where community schools aren't an option because faith schools have shrunk their catchments to nonsense levels. Plenty of (predominantly MC) parents see a point in that.

ArcheryAnnie- when I was referring to not believing children were less deserving I was actually responding to a question that Jassy had asked me.

Then how can you support a selection system that treats them as if they are?

We were very lucky when we moved mid-term with DD (year 1). Our local (Ofsted 'good' rated) primary which isn't our catchment school had recently gone to three form entry, so they're rolling in places. In fact DD is in a class of just 20 children.

However, had that not been the case, we might have really struggled to get a place and I had already decided to become a SAHM in case I needed to home school before a local place became available. DH has the car for work, so I have to be able to walk DD to school, it's no good if the LA offered us a place across town.

A note for all the people campaigning on summer born start dates as an issue - I am open to persuasion to some extent on this but you come across as only caring about your own child and sod anyone else. If you genuinely want to lobby to influence policy rather than being concerned about your own particular circumstances then you need to modify your messages.

FWIW I think you will have far more success campaigning on a later start date for formal school for all in line with other countries then you will on getting a choice for of start dates for summer borns only.

petalunicorn

We are certainly not caring about 'our own child'. If this was the case, those of us whose children have already secured a compulsory school age start in Reception wouldn't keep voicing our concerns about all the other parents who are being refused this opportunity because of a postcode lottery.

As for campaigning for a later formal education start date more generally, this is going on via a number of other organisations. But as it CURENTLY stands, we already HAVE a choice of start dates for summer born children - the problem is that so many people (teachers, head teachers and admissions administrators included) simply did/do not know the facts.

Compulsory school age is the term following a child's 5th birthday - whether people agree with this or not; it's the law.

General

The MNHQ question asked about 'thoughts on the current systems for allocating primary places', and parents of summer born children maintain that the system for summer born admissions is unfair and inconsistently applied. This is a relatively recent issue as it's only just becoming wider knowledge that flexibility exists.

Nevertheless, the cat is out of the bag on compulsory school age now, and until researchers produce evidence that demonstrates it is in our children's best interests to miss a whole year of school (and Warwick University researchers recently said this would be not be credible: 'We obviously could not delay children starting school for the experiment...'), we will continue to challenge an admissions process that arbitrarily places summer born children in Year 1 (or makes them leapfrog a year later on) as a penalty for not going along with what's become 'the norm' - i.e. enrolling children in school early.

It is for MNHQ to decide whether this is an important issue, but we already know that a number of journalists and MPs are taking it very seriously indeed.

Totally agree Petal.

Agree archery annie.

And my child got into a faith school and we are not religious but as it now rapidly improving apparently faith will be more important with admissions criteria.

Have not read all the posts but agree with all of the points JassyRadlett makes. Seven of the ten nearest state primary schools to me are faith schools. They have considerably less FSM and EFL pupils than the community schools. It also means that despite living in a very multicultural part of london the diversity in the local schools in no way reflects the local area.

In addition to all of the worries from previous posters, I find it mind boggling that the availability of wrap around care is such a lottery. We have chosen three schools which are not in catchment area because the two that are have no breakfast or after school provision. I am happy to pay - it needs to be an option though!

Actually, it's okay I'll just give up work so that I can drop DD off and pick her up every day (said no one ever.)

petalunicorn
PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom

MNHQ have asked for thoughts on the current systems for allocating primary places, What WE think about how our LA allocates places? and Have WE found the process stressful?

I'm presuming MNHQ wants thoughts from everyone on this issue...?

The allocation of places for summerborn parents is an extremely stressful process; more stressful than it already is for parents applying for a 'chronological' year group place. We not only have all the issues you face with admissions but also have an added double whammy...

We face a 'battle' with admission authorities to even request a reception start. We have to submit evidence. We can't even apply online.

Some parents can't even list three preferences as some schools won't allow a reception start at compulsory school age so that leaves us at a disadvantage. I could only list ONE school.

After all that, even if we are 'successful' our applications are considered alongside all others and we face all the same challenges everyone else faces too.

This thread has not gone 'off tangent' as previously quoted. It is a real issue, an admissions issue that IS effecting thousands of families. And if I'm right in thinking that's what MNHQ asked for opinions on!!

With regards to only 'caring about our own child' you couldn't be further from the truth. If we had automatic right to do this, there would be fewer children in the class with SEN, fewer behavioural issues etc., all of which could have a positive impact on ALL children in the class. The teacher wouldn't be spending as much time dealing with children who are struggling and unable to access the curriculum - more children 'ready' for the curriculum and better outcomes for everyone!!

Ilove that is such a valid point. Our school has high percentage of working parents so we have full wrap round care - as do all our local schools. (10). I have no idea what we would have done without it

One of the main reasons people have commented on the thread going off topic is that MNHQ asked for the views of MNers. A large number of summer born posts are by people who have never previously posted on MN with that name. And regular MNers who name change tend to choose names in keeping with styles popular on the site.

Everything you have just said has been responded to by someone previously, so I won't repeat.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom - So what your saying is that there are no new (whether that be brand new, or a name change) MNers allowed? Or perhaps that there should be some sort of introductory period before anyone is allowed to post? When does one become a MNer in your view then, genuine question?

MMelson - no. I am saying that when masses of people join to promote their issue it distorts perception of how important MNers as a whole find that issue.

Addressing the OP:

1. Priority for siblings should only apply to siblings living within catchment. Oath wise, you get too much gamesmanship in urban areas like London.

1. Churches running schools is fine. Allocating places based on religion is not.

1. Allowing parents to "hold a child back" a year before starting reception has a lot of negative potential consequences. This is allowed in most American states and the result is a spread of age difference up to two years instead of just one. Down the line it makes classroom management difficult. It also disadvantages poorer children; they become the youngest in a classroom because their parents need the "free childcare " that is school and cannot choose to hold them back the way middle class parents can.

The way too protect summer born children is to keep Reception play based for all the children. They don't need Biff and Chip books shoved in their tiny hands.

PenguinsandtheTantrumof Doom

Sorry, I didn't realise there was a 'popular style' of name we had to conform to? I saw this post and genuinely wanted to comment as it is something I am very passionate about and CURRENTLY experiencing within the admissions process, many other summerborn parents obviously are too.

I'm not really sure what the problem is? It's a genuine admissions problem.

I think MNHQ would be very happy that this thread has drawn a lot of interest from (possibly) new MNers. If anything that's a good thing and I think it should be welcomed.

Everything you have just said has been responded to by someone previously, so I won't repeat.

I'm not sure if it has to be honest...how do we only care about our own children when I've just posted this....

With regards to only 'caring about our own child' you couldn't be further from the truth. If we had automatic right to do this, there would be fewer children in the class with SEN, fewer behavioural issues etc., all of which could have a positive impact on ALL children in the class. The teacher wouldn't be spending as much time dealing with children who are struggling and unable to access the curriculum - more children 'ready' for the curriculum and better outcomes for everyone!!

This would benefit ALL children...would it not?!

No. Lots of people have pointed out again and again the amount of privilege it takes to take advantage of even 'easy' deferral. Also, how misleading it is to talk as if most children start at 5 and do a full year in reception. I get that you want to help other summer babies, but fundamentally no, it isn't about helping everyone. It is about parents doing the best for their child. Which is legitimate, but not a reason to make public policy.

Spring I agree on okay based. Our massive school is totally play based in reception which is probably why it gets amazing results for its area. No home work. The odd book home I am horrified BH stories of R DC with homework
I a

And honestly, I think some sort of alert probably went out on your Facebook group or something as a way to promote your cause. That is fine, but it isn't subtle and expect people to call you on trying to make this seem 'THE admissions issue' MNHQ should promote when it doesn't feature much generally.

Masses mentioning summer born? There are currently 517 messages on this thread, the vast majority of which seem to pertain to faith schools.

Faith schools, a thought - As admission authorities for schools designated as having a religious character must have regard to any guidance from the body or person representing their religion and as CofE schools must consult with their diocese about proposed admission arrangements, it's only fair that any guidance is publicly available on a schools website along with determined admission arrangements, since "Admission arrangements means the overall procedure, practices, criteria and supplementary information to be used in deciding on the allocation of school places and refers to any device or means used to determine whether a school place is to be offered." - more often than not, it is not available. Yet some parents of summer born children have been told 'the diocese says no', or 'the diocese won't allow it'. No transparency.

There has definately been more people than normal on a primary ed thread posting about summer borns as I said previously - I am not sure that was what the original question was about ..

What 'privelege' does it take to take advantage of a 'deferral'? If the DfE and admissions authorities actually made families aware that they could even do this AND made the request straightforward I know many more families would be requesting it. If families feel that's not right for their child and their whole family unit then that's their choice to make.

We just want the choice.

The point is...what is the point in having a compulsory school age in England if a child can't begin school, at compulsory school age, in reception? That is the question here.

So are you actually saying that we shouldn't have a public policy that allows parents to do their best for their child...I think you are aren't you?! I think that's exactly the reason we should make it public policy.

Then it's parents choice if they choose to take it or not.

See previous posts.