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.

Can't paste the link as on phone. Google "Month of birth and education" school analysis and research division. That's one.

Archery such a good point! That rings very true near us. I ran a mile from one white MC faith school near us which seems to think reception was KS1 and was very formal. It seemed that that was the parental expectations. There are some amazing schools near us in the less desirable areas- with high support levels and resources

Yes it is quite difficult yonic - I'm hopeful we'll get all the tests done and everything ready for DS before the January deadline for his admissions - but he has a friend with possible autism and they aren't sure he will get his diagnosis in time either because of the dx process which is waiting to see if he grows out of certain behaviours...

Googling that pdf to the Gov.uk site the relevant summary point seems to be:

"Summer-born pupils are also significantly more likely to be identified as having a special educational need than their older classmates. At the end of Key Stage 1, August-born pupils are nearly 90% more likely to be identified with SEN than September-born pupils; at Key Stage 2, this reduces to 60% more likely, and further to 25% more likely by Key Stage 4. The types of special educational need most disproportionate in summer-born pupils are moderate learning difficulties, specific learning difficulties, speech, language and communications needs, and other (unclassified) needs."

Which isn't saying what you claim it is saying.

I don't know if there's already som. space for later diagnosis under priority late admissions to cover SN?
Although it doesn't help if diagnosis is usually after 5, or whatever

I was thinking about this earlier - but tbh, for my child I wouldn't want a late admission that put him in a class that's over PAN anyway. I think we will be hedging our bets on an unpopular school with responsive teachers, small class sizes and not too many windows as a priority!

I think the campaign for parents of summer born children to be able to decide which year their child goes in to is very problematic. In fact, I think it misdiagnoses the problem and proposes a solution that would be worse than the current situation.

The deferral system is Scotland is very skewed to further advantage the already advantaged in society. The fact is, you're only going to choose deferral if you can afford another year of nursery fees (or of one parent not working) - and you need to understand the system enough to know that it will benefit your child and that you're eligible. It's an example of a policy that looks progressive on the surface but is, in fact, deeply regressive because it helps to entrench advantage at the expense of the most vulnerable.

The statistical difference in outcomes for the youngest children is only the issue because British education (and particularly English education) is obsessed with making everything academic at ever younger ages where developmental differences become a serious problem. I could absolute get behind a campaign to extend pre-school type education to later in life and to myth bust on the 'able children will get bored if they aren't taught the 3Rs 'stretched' at nursery. Giving children a right to years of play-based early childhood education (you can make this just like starting school so that people are not disadvantaged if they need the childcare aspects) and then getting on with the academic stuff at 6-7 would be much better. There's plenty of evidence that children learn more effectively when you do this anyway.

Instead we get a very nimby-ish campaign that would increase the developmental ranges in reception classes, with the poorest and most vulnerable children at the greatest disadvantage.

Hmm, struggling to keep up with this thread (toddler not to keen on letting mummy 'check emails' mumsnet at the mo) but just seen the development about the summer born issue apparently never having been heard of it before, on mumsnet or elsewhere. Here's where I've heard of it and heard of it LOTS:

• Mumsnet. All the time! In AIBU (e.g. to think if my child/ teenager wouldn't be struggling if they weren't so young in the year); In Special Educational Needs (other problems being made much worse by being youngest in the year); Parenting (how to speed up toilet training, nap removal, self-dressing etc because summer born three year olds are nowhere near physically (let alone emtionally) ready for school in Sept. I'm sure the list goes on, they're just topics I tend to read. It IS an issue on Mumsnet - when I was pregnant with summer born DD it was mumsnet that first bought the issue to my attention and people's ongoing reporting of how their summer borns struggle constantly reinforces to me that I DO have cause for concern re when to send my DD.

• At the school gates/ in general society. I hear people talking (albeit often matter if factly, as if there is no other option) about such and such struggling because they're youngest in the year etc. It's obvious to all. There is definitely awareness of the big gap in terms of readiness and ability to 'keep up' (catch up really) thereafter.

• In the media! Every week it's somewhere recently: BBC News, Telegraph, Guardian, Times... Sky News and even the Daily Mail. It's not about ideology (I'm a massive lefty and have no desire to leave anybody behind) but the facts are stark; month of birth is a greater predictor of educational attainment than social class! That ain't subtle - it's a matter of great educational inequality. And yes middle class mummies may be at the for front of any campaigning but isn't that always the way with any social change? We can represent others too you know - are you claiming every middle class socialist leader was only really out for middle class gain?!

Much as I love mumsnet (and see above re it being here all the time too!) it is rather important to seek out other outlets of news... Find it incredible anybody even remotely up on current affairs could claim it's seen as a non-issue outside of a few crazies on this thread!

Another point in favour for DS's unpopular (but lovely) old primary school full of v low-income children: class size of 23.

Tewi in both cases I would look to choose schools with good provision for a slow EYFS start. I would avoid schools that come across as too pushy. I am horrified that one of my friends 4yr old DD gets daily 1/2 hour homework. It was taking an hour. She was concerned that she wasn't coping well (prem baby mid year). That because she shouldn't be having it imo. The homework was the issue not the child

Summer-born children are more likely to be categorised as having SEN because the school system judges them against a measure that is very much affected by developmental trajectories but which acts like there's a single point of reference.

Take for example, the 'good level of development' measure. This is the same whether children are 4 years 11 months or 5 years 10 months olds, despite the fact that it is nonsensical not to take age into account when assessing, for example, speech and language development (or any other aspect of development). So the youngest children are disproportionately likely to be judged as 'behind', 'needing support' rather than simply 'younger'.

The effect of these standard points of assessment drops off through the school system because the developmental differences matter less.

The problem is the way the system is assessing things, not necessarily that some parents should be allowed to have their child tested at 6 years 2 months instead.

month of birth is a greater predictor of educational attainment than social class!

Where did you get that information?

According to the gov.uk publication I've just been pointed to:

"The August-September gap at Key Stage 4 is slightly larger than the gender gap, but the FSM gap is twice as large and the SEN gap is 4 times as large. At Key Stage 2, the August-September gap is a little larger than the gender gap and a little smaller than the FSM gap, but the SEN gap is 7 times as large. Whilst the FSM gap widens over the course of compulsory education, and the SEN gap widens then begins to narrow again, both the gender and month of birth gaps narrow as pupils progress through school."

So even between the two extremes of September and August, this says that by KS2 the FSM gap is larger. By KS4 the FSM is twice as large. And, of course, August children aren't generally compared with September ones, but their cohort as a whole.

Much as I love mumsnet (and see above re it being here all the time too!) it is rather important to seek out other outlets of news... Find it incredible anybody even remotely up on current affairs could claim it's seen as a non-issue outside of a few crazies on this thread!

Well, this certainly makes me feel more warmly about the subject.

Well said Grainwhole!

I'm completely flabbergasted by some people's responses in here. My son is 3.5 years old and nowhere near ready for school in September. Yes he has got other issues apart from being a summerborn (an upper limb difference, possible ASD, digestive issues, speech delay, a speech disorder and Epilepsy) but even without those I still wouldn't want him to be starting school 10 days after he turns 4. My due date was the end of September and that was down to our strong feelings regarding this issue but my son was born almost 4 weeks early.
It's beyond me how anyone can sit there and say that the summer born campaign is nimby! I think you're all forgetting that it already states in the admissions code that you can request for your summerborn child to start school at 'CSA' so that isn't the issue here.. The issue is that the child is then being forced to start in Year 1 instead of Reception and therefore missing out on their crucial first year of education aswell as a year of bonding with their classmates. And also that it's a postcode lottery and therefore totally subjective and unfair.
And no I've never posted in Mumsnet before but I often read a lot of the threads for advice.. I didn't realise that I couldn't then join when I felt like I needed to.

The summer born issue has been around forever and has been discussed forever. My DB was born the DAY before the cutoff 50 odd years ago and was literally the youngest you could possibly be in his year.

We all think it would have made a huge difference if he had dropped down a year. It effected his whole education. He was in the SENCO. ( or whatever they were called at the time) classes. I know it doesn't matter to some people but I know it effected him.

My adult DC are all autumn and winter born but the subject of who was summer born would still come up between discussions with my friends during the A'level years. A year is a long time.

I think that many people have grabbed the wrong end of the stick with this issue.

Yes, summer-borns are disadvantaged by the system as it stands. But who is the system there for? The children, of course! So, rather than wedging our children into the system to their disadvantage (current way) or tweaking the system/demanding rights to manipulate the system (what's being argued over in this thread) how about a slightly more radical idea:

CHANGE the system to a more child-centric one.

Change the CSA to 5.5
Change the age cut-off date to end March.
Change KS1 to a flexible, vertical grouping, through which children move at a more flexible speed.

I think you're all forgetting that it already states in the admissions code that you can request for your summerborn child to start school at 'CSA' so that isn't the issue here.. The issue is that the child is then being forced to start in Year 1 instead of Reception and therefore missing out on their crucial first year of education aswell as a year of bonding with their classmates.

Yes, it states in the admission code that any child can wait until the term after they turn 5. Of course, in England, not one single child can do that and still have a full year of reception. In fact, 5/12th s of the children could not start at CSA and go into reception. Even if you talk about 'at or around 5', that option is only available to a few autumn children.

The summerborn campaign talks as if their child is being denied something offered to others - the right to start at 5 and have a full year of reception. They aren't. Literally no child gets that bar the September birthdays.

What the issue actually is is one of degree. Of whether just turned four is too young for school.

If you think it is, I respect that. Campaign to raise the starting age.

If you think that it is for some children, why you think a procedure of parental choice would in any way effectively target those children is beyond me. In fact, what would happen is that that procedure would target privileged 'young' ones.

If you think that the system for assessing whether premature children and those with delays is too random across the country, again I respect that. A more predictable and uniform process is certainly something you could campaign for.

At the moment, the campaign is well intentioned, but misguided in how it seeks to address the issue it has identified.

Having a child start school at CSA only works if there is more than one admission per year.

We used to have new admissions every term in our county but a few years ago it was reduced to new starters in September only.

Going back to a termly basis might help.

Must be really lucky here in Somerset. I spoke to dd1's head teacher about dtds starting school as they turn 4 2 days before they start school and were due end of Sept. Tbh they have great social skills and can dress themselves, use toilet independently etc.
my main concern is how tired they will get. Head said they can do part time as long as they need to and can repeat reception is it was felt necessary.
Dd1 could definitely write her name when she started but she is Feb baby. Dtds can write the first letter of their names but otherwise they're not interested so I'm not pushing it.
Ime reception involves a lot of play anyway so I'm expecting year 1 to be more of an issue. Might be suprised though. Most intelligent pupil in my secondary was the youngest in the year and she's now phd scientist type person (had very messy writing lol). Obviously that's one pupil but I think it's unfair to write off summer born Dc. Speak to your school's head and work with them.
It's only through these threads that I remember I was born at 32 weeks and not one was that raised in my school years.

ArcheryAnnie, I'm sorry I genuinely don't understand your point - all I'm saying is I think it's important to be informed by a range of sources, not sure what's controversial about that?
The 'crazies' comment was with reference to me and other summer born parents btw, i.e. We're being told on this thread that we're just a few fringe oddbods and that it's not an issue that bothers people more broadly.

FryOne, we had that system, too, but it was felt that the summer term starters were disadvantaged because they only got one term in Reception, so they changed to the standard September start.

The deferral system is Scotland is very skewed to further advantage the already advantaged in society. The fact is, you're only going to choose deferral if you can afford another year of nursery fees (or of one parent not working) - and you need to understand the system enough to know that it will benefit your child and that you're eligible. It's an example of a policy that looks progressive on the surface but is, in fact, deeply regressive because it helps to entrench advantage at the expense of the most vulnerable.

i'm sure it could have this effect in some areas of scotland but isn't the impact it has in my local/neighbouring area. the policy in most local authorities is that children born in January/February can automatically defer, and claim another year of funded pre-school; for children born between mid-August and the end of December they can defer if there is support from nursery/GP/HV/SW that this could be helpful for the child and again they would then get another year of funded pre-school.

i know lots of people who deferred for a whole variety of reasons, including someone who deferred in the hope that her september-born child with SEN might manage to attend mainstream schooling if held back. that didn't happen but by the time she was making the decision to send to special school she was confident that was the right choice.

Almostapril - yes, very good eyfs provision that doesn't rush him and also as motherofdragons mentioned possibly more halfdays is a factor for us (he gets extremely tired as well)
However most of our needs are specific to his SN and to do with reducing how hard he has to work to hear so the highest priority will be things like will he be able to see the teacher face to face in the class rooms without glare/too many other children in the way. When he has small group time will they be in a seperate room or will they structure things so that the rest of the children in the class doing other activities are quiet (he wouldn't be able to concentrate on hearing if there is a lot of background noise). The communication between staff needs to be excellent. He doesn't need a 1to1 necessarily..
His needs are very subtle and need to be understood as a child with hearing loss that needs support, not as a child who will catch up when he is ready.

Summer born children could do with a later start date and I agree with that if the start date is raised for all children, but I don't agree with it where it's only for some children because it pushes the ability of the class too wide and it makes it harder for teachers to accommodate the range of children without SN and the children with SN like mine - children with SN can't be dealt with in a quick catch all way, they all need completely individual different approaches.

Selfishly, I don't want lots of TAs taken up with advanced reading for children who are much older (and if your parent is pushy enough to organise deferal of a child that is merely young, no other issues, they are pushy enough to insist their child is stretched!) when mine needs those staff just to have equal access to what the class is doing.

Grainwhole it was a response to your incredibly patronising assumption that those of us who hadn't come across the summerborns issue were ignoramuses whose sole source of news was MN.

Ready for that discussion of the Iranian nuclear deal, yet? Or what about sovereignty issues in the Arctic? Or (etc etc)...

penguins

The summerborn campaign talks as if their child is being denied something offered to others

summerborn children are the ONLY group of children who can't access ANY of reception after compulsory school age.

What is the point in legislating a compulsory school age if you can't begin in reception at compulsory school age? Every other child can access reception at compulsory school age; summerborns can't.

Do you know what, I don't want to start a campaign to help the country's summer borns. Call me selfish but I don't have the time or skills. What I do want is what's best for my individual dc. All dc are different and all people seem to be saying is they want greater flexibility and greater parental input.