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.

Flexibility for parents of children within certain birth dates won't prevent any of that. The only thing that can prevent what you describe is making the first few years of school suitable for young children.

The whole concept of 'school readiness' is a nonsense. Schools should be set up to cater the children that come in. The fact is, sitting in a seat and doing handwriting homework is not suitable for many 4 year olds (or even nearly 5 year olds). There is nothing wrong with those 4 year olds. The problem is the expectations placed on them by a very silly education system. Even those children who do manage to cope with it would not be disadvantaged by more open-ended play and later introduction of school type learning. No child will be bored in a properly planned play-based early childhood setting. Even at 6.

I think most people could get behind a campaign to make the early years of schooling suitable for young children. Indeed, the fact that we think early years is 0-5 while internationally the discussion is about early childhood (which is 0-8) is very telling.

However instead what we get is a campaign to let some parents game the current system by shifting their children from the disadvantaged by the cut off to most advantaged by it. That's why it is inherently nimby-ish.

I'd hugely support an increase in the age children start school - they start absurdly early in this country.

I first became aware of the summerborn campaigners about a month ago. After seeing a lot of the media coverage, I googled and came across a mumsnet discussion which pointed me in the direction of the campaigners. I am slowly trying to educate myself as when I speak to prospective schools, I am given misinformation or patronised with anecdotes.
It has been informative and interesting to read about the other point of view on this thread but I have not been convinced by most of it. I don't want to see a situation where disadvantaged 4 yr olds are in classes where the ages range between 17 months rather than 12 but I honestly don't think this would become the widespread case. I live in a middle class city suburb and based on my experience, most middle class parents don't want to pay for an extra year of childcare (which is even more than the private schools around here if you are that way inclined) and my stay at home mum friends can't wait for school age to come around. I think the competitive type parents that are being referred to on this thread probably would want to avoid any potential stigma of keeping their child behind or admitting that they are not ready.

I probably won't apply to defer my August born child as I will see obtaining a school place in an oversubscribed area as more important. It's unlikely that huge changes will be made to our admissions or early years education in the short term so I would concentrate first on changing schools' sibling policy and supporting the summerborn campaign. Someone earlier said improving an imperfect system. Ultimately, I agree with what BoffinMum said.

One quick clarification for benefit of MNHQ readers - it's absolutely true that many parents have to fight to gain access to Reception class at compulsory school age for their summer born child, but there ARE cases of children born in April and May who have been allowed this access with no battle at all.

Hence my point that the DfE's Code already allows for this flexibility to occur, but the problem is that the system as it is also allows for huge inconsistencies throughout the country. Either the DfE allows and supports this (which it says it does) for ALL summer born children - or it cannot claim to have a clear, fair and objective School Admissions Code for all children.

I think Calamitous and Boffin have it.

I have two April born dcs. one is now nearly 6 and dealt with Reception fine - in a context where she had wrap around care from a very relaxed, very familiar, very kind childminder, who catered to her general exhaustion very well. She's temperamentally suited to school though.

My second dc is looking at starting Reception in Sep at 4 and a half and I am worried about it. She is temperamentally quite different (very bright but much more wilful and much more sensitive) and still gets very tired - but we can't find a childminder so the wrap around care will be much harder on her, much more active, much more demanding, it will all seem very harsh to her. I genuinely don't know how she will cope with it all. Not because she is younger than the cohort but because it's all a bit bloody full on, isn't it.

Who believes in the way we do this? What's the point? It's not like Germans grow up into illiterate thickos, is it?

In countries where they dont start school till 6 or 7, surely most parents still have to use childcare or kindergarten? Is it very different to Reception? Genuine question. I cant imagine everyone can afford to be SAHPs and spend all day climbing trees with the kids.

Wafting you are correct. Where formal schooling starts at 6 or 7 the vast majority of DC are often in state kindergarten full time. There is a parallel with reception.

It's a bit of a nightmare for us personally - we're out of the country until the summer before DD starts school. We own and rent out our house that is in the village we wish her to attend school, but we can't apply there until we move back home. By which point the school will be full. So she's left with a choice of home, private or whatever dregs the LEA have left when we return. In a town where all the schools are oversubscribed, I fear we are stuffed.

Our biggest issue right now is the restrictions on local authorities to build new schools because they need to prioritise free schools and academies. I don't want some unknown entity schooling my children, I just want a good local school.
Our area is totally oversubscribed for primary school places and yet funding is going to free schools and academies wherever they choose to pop up.
This is utterly infuriating.
We are within 450m of two acceptable primary schools and yet unlikely to get into either because of a huge population boom in our area and massive oversubscription as a result.
I really feel this whole idea if 'choice' is a farce which adds immensely to parental stress.
The Scottish system sounds far superior from what I've read on here.

I completely distrust the free school system - there's too much potential for those with religious or personal agendas to set up their own little kingdoms. The LA system isnt perfect but at least they are accountable to the general public.

I think the free school thing is fine if set up by credible people. Near us two long established private schools are going to convert to free schools. One other is set up by a top private school . Two are set up by excellent local academy schools. One community free school is by local parents and educational trust,

the free school thing, in conjunction with the restrictions placed on the LEA, is just bollocks. I genuinely have no idea why this is thought to be a good idea. I mean I can just about get my head around, "what if anyone could set up a school?" (not that I agree with it - but I can see why some people would). I cannot remotely get to why it should be at the expense of the LEA's educational activities.

Don't get me wrong. I really wish LAd could just open new schools themselves but they can't. I would rather not have Free schools. There are no doubt some freaky free schools but a lot are in fact run by established education groups - certainly in my LA they all are

Sorry to be late to the party – long standing Mumsnetter – naice ham, penis beaker etc. I have been following this thread for several days but have sadly been too busy dealing with the fallout from primary admissions from 2009. Yes that's right 2009. That is the problem with getting primary admissions wrong for an individual child - there is no flexibility in the state system to get it right later.

A number of posters talk about "developmental delays" being a good reason for delay. These are almost impossible to identify at age 3 and many are not assessed until much later. In the current climate diagnoses and support for children with special needs, spld or other, are very lengthy and difficult to obtain. I had to apply for primary school when my child was 3 years & 4 months old. I believed there were some issues - he is now 9 1/2 and I still don't have a full diagnosis. Some of his learning difficulties were formally diagnosed in Yr 4 - my DS had by this time had several years of being bullied and teased- the damage to his self esteem may never be repaired. The good to outstanding local village state primary failed to address these issues. They tried with other issues - my DS had almost exclusive support from the class TA. Shame that TA couldn't be used to support other children in the class.

So 6 years on from our primary admission, full of hope and joy that DS was going to the local state primary, I have just signed papers for him to go to a private specialist school. The extra year would have given my DS a better start. His learning needs wouldnt have changed but at least they wouldn't have been dismissed as me being PFB and DS being an immature summer-born.

I campaign for FLEXIBLE admissions for summer-borns because I don't want any other family in this country to go through what we went through. If your child is ready to go to school then great you have options but I your child isn't ready then you don't. The academic research clearly demonstrates the gap in attainment between autumn borns and summer borns. Similar attainment issues are dealt with, and quite rightly, by government policy (eg for black boys).

There have been some really good points on this thread about a later compulsory starting age for all children, a fair and equal admissions process for all children, less formal testing in reception. Let's hope there is some change going forward. I would be less concerned if as a country we did well in international education comparisons for students leaving school age 16-18 but we don't do well. The rot in our system starts very early on.

I am also a longstanding mner, since my DS1 was born 7 and a half years ago.

I support the summer born campaign for a number of reasons:

1. Children do not have to be at school until the term after they turn 5 in England. Why can't they start in reception at CSA?

2. The masses of studies that have shown how harmful it can be to teach 'formal' schooling before a child is ready

3. We have one of the youngest school starting ages in the world and perform much worse than countries who have more of a kindergarten approach until 6 or 7

4. The curriculum is getting tougher and tougher and more focused on the 3 Rs.

5. We are introducing testing earlier and grouping according to ability. I believe their confidence will be impacted before they're even ready, before they've even begun.

All of these show how harmful our education system can be on the confidence and long term mental well being of our children. I hear stories of children at SATs ages not sleeping and having nightmares. We are putting our children under too much pressure too soon.

I fundamentally feel that just turned 4 is too young to start formal schooling (and yes, I think reception, whilst it includes more play, is still 'formal schooling').

I massively agree with increasing the school starting age.
I also massively agree that summerborns are the most affected from all of the above.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

This isn't about being the youngest in the year. It's about (some) just turned 4 year olds just not being ready for school.

It does feel like there is a general consensus that reception year should be more like nursery (schools seem to vary greatly) and there should be much less pressure on 4 year olds to perform to expectation dreamt up by government? Curriculum should reflect the fact that lots of the children are still very young and then the summer borns have more time before heading into formal learning?
Problem is that the system is obsessed with league tables and tests it would appear

What really, really would not help my DS - given that he is December born, is to have a third of his class be both the academic year older and significantly more able than him due to their extra time at preschool

Actually, as a December born, your DS would have been entitled to 5 terms of preschool, a delayed summerborn 6 terms, just one term more, whereas a summerborn entering at the expected age of just-turned-4 would have had 3 terms of preschool - two less than your DS. That is really not going to help a summerborn is it - do you see why we find it unfair?

The issue of pre-school is a complicated one.

Yes, as a parent of children who each 'lost' (or will lose) 2 terms of pre-school funding I do feel that that process is unfair. It means that the oldest children get the advantage of the most pre-school.

This is a natural consequence of the utter shambles that is both parties' policies on childcare funding. They can't make up their mind whether they are funding early years education (in which case it makes sense that it's term time only, but each child should be entitled to the same period) or childcare costs (in which case it makes sense that it starts from a fixed age point, but should be year round).

As an aside, it's also worth noting that, in areas where pressure on pre-school places is highest (e.g. my old area of London), children are often only accepted into the pre-schools for the academic year before they start school. So in that sense the playing field is level. Even in areas of the country where this isn't the case, many pre-schools have to prohibit children from joining part way through the year (because it requires holding the place open with no income for a big chunk of the year if the child doesn't start until Christmas or Easter), so again it is the affluent who manage to 'access' the right to that term or two terms, because they can self-fund from September until the funding kicks in.

Obviously the above refers to pre-schools rather than people who apply the 15 hours to their bill at a nursery. But there the younger children aren't losing the benefit of the time at the nursery in the same way.

Actually, as a December born, your DS would have been entitled to 5 terms of preschool, a delayed summerborn 6 terms, just one term more, whereas a summerborn entering at the expected age of just-turned-4 would have had 3 terms of preschool -

I'm not sure where you are going with this exactly. So your delayed summerborn gets 6 terms, but a January child gets 4. The maths always means someone loses out. The current system means your child gets two fewer terms than the 'best off'. Your solution means the a Spring child gets two fewer terms than the best off. You've just shifted the disadvantage around.

Um - starving, you realise my son has hearing loss? Deaf children have significantly below average academic outcomes (and many deaf children like my DS have no other SN, so absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be doing well) - if your think your nt child is at a colossal disadvantage because they have a few less terms at preschool then you need to educate yourself.

My DS is at the moment, and yes he might be December but he is so far behind where my late March older child was at the same time. They're both bright kids, it's not a coincidence that he struggles.

Agree Penguins, which is why it would be better if the focus of the summer born campaigners was on ensuring the early years of school were much more play based than they are now. That would benefit all children, including the summer borns.

*Um - starving, you realise my son has hearing loss? Deaf children have significantly below average academic outcomes (and many deaf children like my DS have no other SN, so absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be doing well) - if your think your nt child is at a colossal disadvantage because they have a few less terms at preschool then you need to educate yourself.

My DS is at the moment, and yes he might be December but he is so far behind where my late March older child was at the same time. They're both bright kids, it's not a coincidence that he struggles.*
Um - Tewi, no, I didn't realise that however the argument still stands. I don't believe my son will be at a "colossal disadvantage" - I simply wanted to point out that if someone says a child with 6 terms of preschool will disadvantage their child who has been at preschool for 5 terms, they are ignoring the fact that 5/12 of the other children in their child's cohort will have been at preschool for only 3 terms. I don't feel the need to educate myself on the differences between my child and others, but thanks for the suggestion.

Penguins - I am struggling to articulate it properly, sorry. Of course one section of the class will have always had more time at preschool. I wanted to point out that the disadvantage can be shifted - a delayed summerborn child would have more time at preschool but as this would be all of one term I don't think it can be argued as a disadvantage for a winterborn who already will have two terms more education than 5/12 of the class, plus the advantage of age (and several preschools by me allocate places by age - my late August DS almost missed preschool education at all as he only got a place due to someone leaving). Perhaps the fairest thing is that everyone can have 3/4/5 terms of preschool before they start school, regardless of where they were born in the school year. But this is a whole different issue so I will quietly step away!

I don't feel the need to educate myself on the differences between my child and others, but thanks for the suggestion

... well that says an awful lot.

And is actually quite upsetting.

Just underlines how self-centered and arrogant the summerborn campaign is.

Ah well, looks like you have a new person who will actively fight against what you want now.

"ignoring the fact that 5/12 of the other children in their child's cohort will have been at preschool for only 3 terms. "

This is an overstatement. Many parents access pre school before their child turns 3 and don't forget some have access from 2.

I'd be perfectly happy with a "4 terms of pre school for all"campaign.