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 any Early Years experts on this thread say whether all of these problems would go away if: instead of parents of different children being able to pick and choose whether they would start with their cohort or delay (thereby opening up a 17 month gap); all children, the whole cohort, were to start later?

In general (I am not an expert) it seems to me that some 4 year olds are very definitely struggling with reception (not just the very young ones); but this all seems to have disappeared by 5 and a half, definitely 6, except in very exceptional cases. We wouldn't have to "special snowflake" anyone, if we just accepted that 4 is painfully early. Is that right?

Couldn't we just have lovely jolly optional but free state nurseries instead of school until they are about 6?

Tiggy - On your last point, I agree. That can also be an issue not because of academies but because adjoining authorities or boroughs have different policies.

The same issue also arises on the difference between route as the crow flies and closest walking route when talking about people who live on borders.

talkingofmichaelangelo - I am not an early years expert. But the report that has been linked to suggests most countries have some degree of attainment gap between oldest and youngest at the point of standardised tests.

On the specific question of being ready for formal education, I suspect you could find evidence to suggest that a general delay is beneficial, or not harmful. Many countries start their education later than we do.

Oh gosh yes. Somewhere in London has a big issue with 'closest school' don't they? Can't remember which boroughs.

Given that those on benefits are being forced to find work "once their youngest child is at school" one has to wonder whether that would be a factor - either a young child being forced to start at 4.0 so the parent can be forced to go out to work, or forced to defer to 5.5 so the parent doesn't have to work. Either situation could disadvantage a child with zero reference to his maturity or ability.

Surrey has the closest school factor. It works for those who move into an area as then you have some certainty. But in towns if there are schools 300m, 500m and 700m away I think it's a bit of a nonsense. A friend of mine didn't get the school 300m away even though it was her closest as it was full of siblings and a few closer to it than her. So it's no guarantee.

What parents of summer borns want is flexibility. Parents know their children best and can confidently say if their child is ready for the pressures that Reception year entails.

Many summer borns will be ready to start school before they turn 5. That's fine. That's their parents' choice! However, the ones who aren't should be given the choice of starting later. Everyone is different and ALL parents know that children mature at different rate.

It's not for everyone, I understand, respect and support that.

I also wasn't aware of the 'name rule'. So forgive me for not being very creative.

"Parents know their children best and can confidently say if their child is ready for the pressures that Reception year entails. "

Why not campaign instead to reduce the "pressures" of reception year? Or to say that as not all 4 year olds can cope with such pressures, let's make the cut off 31/3 for all.

You cannot ignore that there is a financial element to the ability to start school a year later and it will therefore be influenced by affordability as well as assessment.

I'm all for a later school start date and I imagine that yes it would solve the summerborn issue, but I think the chances of that happening are extremely slim. Would a later start date appeal to the masses though? I imagine not?

I don't think a later start date solves the summer born issue - when children are very young, 12 months of difference is a high percebtage of their lives. So the effect would probably reduce a little but not disappear if it was a 4.5-5.5 age spread in reception.

There is no 'name rule ' I simply commented that it was pretty clear that people had been summoned on facebook or similar when loads of new posters turn up with a similar format of name that isn't a common style on here.

Nailed it, tiggy.

I'm a member of the summer born group. I've been a member of mums net for ages.
I have been told my summer born son can start age 5 in reception. Yes, I am educated and middle class, and yes I agree that if you are poor and socially disadvantaged, you probably would have struggled to get that agreement from the LA.
But then change the system! Communicate the fact that children don't have to start until they're 5. Communicate the fact to lower income families that you still get your 15 hours NEF until 5 - rather than being told by the LA, as I was, that it would be taken away if I didn't send my child at 4.
I am not choosing to delay my son's entry from any parental competitiveness. He will just not benefit from being in school just 4.
I genuinely don't get why some people feel so threatened or worried or whatever it is, about the summer born campaign, when there is so much robust academic research that show lots of children (and thus society as a whole tiggytape) are suffering due to the summer born effect.

"show lots of children (and thus society as a whole tiggytape) are suffering due to the summer born effect"

If all summer born children started in the year behind, do you honestly not think there would be a 'spring born' effect?

some summer born children will be ready to start at 4 - my older daughter would have been. They're not all going to delay. But yes, I agree the system is imperfect. I don't see why that should stop us making it slightly less imperfect. One step at a time. What are you doing to improve the system? I would genuinely be interested to know. You are obviously passionate about the subject. It would be a shame for that passion not be put to good use :)

15 hours of funding is all very well, but it is a lot less than school and doesn't come with any chance of wrap around breakfast clubs etc.

Tiggy has expressed very clearly why it isn't a good idea.

It wouldn't be making it "less imperfect", it would be making it worse. That is why I disagree.

I said upthread - DC1 is summer born and got on fine. Nonetheless, if it had been my free choice to delay him, I would have done so, because I could pay for another year of childcare and it would result in him being in the statistically strongest position within his cohort i.e. the oldest in the year.

I am pro the system staying broadly as it is, would be relaxed about a 31/3 cut off so all start school at least 4.5 years old (which presumably you would support too?) and would also think it fair if there is an opportunity for parents to apply for delayed entry subject to some kind of standard test/assessment. The assessment would have to confirm that the child would have a significant likelihood of struggling more in their age group than an average summer born (perhaps caused by ongoing effects of prematurity or infant illness).

genuinely don't see how it would make it worse. Not all will delay - the thing of the effect just being shifted to spring won't happen. You wouldn't get CSA children being forced straight into Y1, which is happening at the moment. You would take a step in the right direction.
Are you actively campaigning for other measures to be brought in then? An increase in NEF hours for poorer families? What would you like to see, and what are you doing to try to make it a reality?

I would agree with that. My biggest issue is that I would like to see YR, and also Y1 less formal. I don't like Gove's direction of change.

"genuinely don't see how it would make it worse"

Because classes would have a spread of ages of 17 months, and shifted summer borns don't just become 'average' in the new class - they become the oldest. They become the beneficiaries of the effect.

That was agreeing with Yonic. Cross post

Totally, Penguins. If reception/Y1/Y2 aren't fit for purpose for 5/12 of the cohort because too much is expected for ones of their years, the problem is either the initial starting age or the content of the curriculum. The problem doesn't get solved by individual parents deciding to disadvantage the children in the year below their 'standard' cohort.