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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Ah, it wasn't me that said that!

Pax

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.

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.

On curriculum changes, my concern is the ramp up in expectations from Year One onwards. My DC is in the guinea pig year of the changes. The children are really being pushed and a lot of them just aren't ready. That's got to be doing a lot of damage to their confidence.

That's nice, RDutton, but you don't seem to understand the barriers to the families of the most vulnerable kids knowing anything about this, much less having you sit down wjth them for a chat and a bit of form-filling. I've already said I had never even heard of your campaign when my DS was at his primary (70% FSM), and it's those schoolmatea of his from there who are exactly the children who would be left behind.

At the start of this thread I had never heard of this campaign, halfway through this thread I thought eh, not my thing but let them get on with it, and now 26 pages in, I'm hoping this prime example of middle-class elbow-sharpening actively fails to get any policy changes made whatsoever.

You might want to rethink your campaigning strategy, people.

It absolutely does. The campaign is working to get this widespread, so help is there for all families (that want to do this) so it's easier and more accessible to families. Even if that means amending admissions authorities incorrect legislation so parents are aware of their rights which is often the first hurdle.

I do understand the barriers for families with the most vulnerable children because I work with them on a daily basis, professional and voluntary.

If the code and the system wasn't so difficult then vulnerable families would find it easier.

Ah, really sorry Yoni Pax indeed

ArcheryAnnie

If you've never heard of this campaign please have a look at
the sumerborn website, it may help you understand it a little more.

However, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion and if it's a campaign that you don't agree with that's fine, you don't have too. That's your choice.

Other parents just want to make their choice too without being penalised and made to miss a year of education.

That's nice, RDutton, but you don't seem to understand the barriers to the families of the most vulnerable kids knowing anything about this, much less having you sit down wjth them for a chat and a bit of form-filling.

^^ This. Absolutely this. I do understand that you are well meaning. But the reality is that a policy change like this will leave behind the poorest, the most chaotic, the least educationally engaged. It will leave behind the families who, financially speaking, couldn't begin to consider a later start date. It will leave behind the families who have low literacy and throw the well meaning leaflet sent with the admission pack straight into the bin. It will leave behind the most vulnerable.

To not leave behind the most vulnerable, there would need to be some form of automatic assessment of children within, say, the bottom half of the year. Which would also have many of your supporters complaining when their perfectly able child was told that they should start at 4.5 and not 5.5.

Penguins the status quo is "benefit the affluent and educated and further disadvantage the already disadvantaged and disengaged"... LAs made all sort of hoops for parents to jump through in order to grant permission to enter reception at CSA. That is WHAT IS HAPPENING now.

Educated, well-off (because getting private reports and GP letters and all sorts of "evidence" costs money), articulate, confident enough to stand up to the authority, have time and/or live an a more understanding LA admisisons team (postcode lottery) are already being able to defer their children as it was the case.

Now, the only way to remove such a distortion is to allow all parents to defer. if they wish Some will, some won't.

I believe doing nothing about the current situation is socially regressive.

Your solution makes that worse, not better, hence is socially regressive.

You will end up with, at one end of the spectrum, the 5.5 year old whose parents deferred for no reason other than the benefit of being the oldest. At the other, the 4 year and 1 day old from a chaotic home.

Yes, affluent and educated parents are more able to battle the system now. If your aim was simply that there should be more support for parents with a child with a developmental delay or prematurity which puts them out of year group, I would be with you.

But your aim simply allows those affluent parents a blank slate. Even worse than the current situation.

And, even if all of the above wasn't a problem, the campaign would simply push the problem on to other people's children (specifically those with march birthdays).

The campaign for parents of summer born children cannot be for everyone because not all children are summer born.

Currently DC1 is one of the youngest.

If the rule changed to 31/3 cut off DC2 would be one of the youngest.

I'd rather dc1 was the youngest in a class with a 12 month age range than dc2 was in a class with a 17 month age range.

I'd be easy if dc2 was the youngest in a class with a 12m age range ie if the cut off for all was 31/3 not 31/8.

And if it had been an option to defer DC1, yes, we'd've done it. Not because of lack of readiness, but because it clearly gives a better chance of higher educational outcomes and we could have paid daycare for another year readily.

I fully acknowledge this would have been a self centred not a society centred decision

"statistically gives a better chance of higher educational outcomes " instead of "clearly", I meant!

If the cut off for all was 31/3 then there would still be a 12m age range in the classroom. The youngest, however, would not be disadvantaged for the simple reason that the extra 6m would mean that most of them would be as school-ready as most of their cohort.

A change in the school starting age is one issue, but we HAVE a compulsory school age of the term following a child's 5th birthday already - we just want all children to be able to use it without penalty (I include autumn and spring born children here too because many of their parents would like a January start or part-time attendance but their requests are refused).

You keep saying that what we want would disadvantage the vulnerable in society, but this completely misses the point that the CURRENT, EXISTING summer born policy and 2014 Code is ALREADY doing this.

There now ARE summer born children entering Reception class at compulsory school age; therefore the chronological age gap HAS been increased to a 17 month window in a growing number of schools over the past few years.

This is the reality.

Much of this discussion is taking place as though the above isn't happening at all and shouldn't be allowed to happen. It IS, but what I want to see is ALL parents of summer born children having this option, and not just those lucky enough to be applying to willing head teachers and administrators - or lucky enough to be able to fight with copious correspondence, often solicitors' involvement - or in the end opting for private education in a school that will allow it or home education.

If we really care about the disadvantaged in society MNHQ then this has to become an automatic right and the information needs to be widely disseminated. Otherwise it really is only the children of the most financially able and educated who will have access.

Also, what we're asking for has been described as 'socially regressive' in this thread. Well flexible admissions with a wide age gap is how it's done in Alberta, Canada, and they have some of the best educational outcomes in the world (as cited by Gove in three speeches). I wouldn't call that socially regressive.

Finally, on the point of law, this is not just about compulsory school age; I focus on this a great deal because the truth is that many parents and teachers don't even know what it is, and that's been a big part of the problem. There are many other points of law that support what we are asking for; for example, decisions being made in the best interests of the child. And I maintain that forcing a child to miss a year of school against a parent's wishes is not in their best interests.

You've said this many times, and been answered many times.

You keep saying that what we want would disadvantage the vulnerable in society, but this completely misses the point that the CURRENT, EXISTING summer born policy and 2014 Code is ALREADY doing this.

There now ARE summer born children entering Reception class at compulsory school age; therefore the chronological age gap HAS been increased to a 17 month window in a growing number of schools over the past few years.

There are a currently some 'summer' babies, mostly August babies (not April ones) joining school in reception at just turned five (not 5.5). You've talked again, and again, about how difficult it is to convince the relevant decision makers to allow it. When you say it's going on now, it's for small numbers who have convinced people it's in the child's best interests.

That is not the same as opening the policy up to anyone, simply because they want little Johnny to be 11.5 when he sits his 11+ and 16.5 when he does his GCSEs.

My DC2 is ready to start school this year. Would she be ready if most of her contemporaries were waiting a year and lots of children were up to 5.5? No. So, like many, many middle class, educated parents, I'd defer her. So instead of being a few children who are 'old' for their year, it would end up being the vulnerable who were 'young' for their year.

I'm really not going to get into a debate about Alberta. Lots of countries have very different admission policies to ours. Those policies have to be seen in the context of the population density, the pressure on school places, the structure of schooling as a whole (when does formal learning start, do you move through the years automatically or by assessment, etc), the format of teaching and learning and many other factors. As for Gove loving Alberta, well suffice to say that's no endorsement to me coming from a family of teachers.