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.

Thanks be, that's a very helpful report.

I have a late summer child; i don't see a way to change the system that doesn't give some age advantage to a group of children and that report implies the same; other countries show an age difference whatever the cut off method.

If you meant that my April baby should be able to start in reception at nearly 5.5 just on parental say so I think that's even more socially regressive

No penguins I'm not saying you should do that, but I am saying you should have the choice. Some April born children will be 'ready' in the September following their 4th Birthday some won't, that's why the summer born guidance and the option to request it is there. What we are trying to highlight is the inconsistencies across admission authorities due to the subjective nature of the code. Some admission authorities will allow it, some won't. This is not fair.

The fact that you have to pick me out on not using a space between the words summer and born just shows you have no 'argument' left.

It won't make it worse for any other children, as previously posted it will only make it better.

I agree there is a problem of starting formal schooling too young.

I could get thoroughly behind campaigns that addressed this issue by:

A) extending the EYFS into Y1

or

B) changing the Aug/Sept cut-off to Dec/Jan or Mar/Apr

There is a slight problem with comparing other countries' CSA because that doesn't describe what children are doing before and after (formal "nursery" or play-based "school" perhaps) nor does it take into account the complexity of English orthography which does require longer and more formal teaching.

Bemybebe: all that graph actually illustrates is the ludicrousness of the 'good level of development' measure at the end of the eyfs. Of course the younger children are disproportionately likely to achieve a single measure of development applied to children who vary in age by 11 months.

It's a profoundly silly measure dreamt up by people who haven't given any thought to what child development actually looks like.

If you started children's formal learning later, you'd find the differences between the oldest and the youngest became much less significant. If you simply allow some parents to decide whether their child should start a year later, all it means is that you're assessing children who vary in age by 15+ months on a single measure. The youngest children will then appear even more unlikely to achieve it.

This is a huge problem because it is the children whose parents do not have the means or the knowledge or the inclination (or a mixture of the above) who will be the youngest. Those are the children who are at the greatest disadvantage already.

As others have said, campaign to have all children start school at 6 or even 7 (when the age difference will matter less). Don't campaign for those with the sharpest elbows to be given extra room to swing them.

Yonic - Indeed.

It makes a few interesting points (have only read the executive summary and the conclusion so far):

• it is absolute age that is believed to make the difference in later attainment: being older than others taking the same exam gives you a leg up.

• the biggest single predictor of low attainment is FSM. The biggest predictor of lower attainment is multiple factors (being a young, boy, on FSM, for example).

Yoni, I am from the country where the parents are given the full choice when to send the child to school. All parents and the age range is 1.5 years and no, there is no age effect at all. Sorry to disappoint.

It's a profoundly silly measure dreamt up by people who haven't given any thought to what child development actually looks like.

Well, that you can address with the DfE, it is their report.

The fact that you have to pick me out on not using a space between the words summer and born just shows you have no 'argument' left.

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.

Rdutton, are you proposing an objective test of readiness?

Be, that's from the report you linked!

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

Yes, this exactly, Calamitously, thank you.

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.

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!

In what way am I ignoring the law?

No Yonic.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.