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.

Also, purely on entitlement to free hours, 8/12 of the class will have 3 or 4 terms. You think it is not moving the advantage to the deferred summer born to get at least 50% more than the majority of the rest of the class? You always talk as if every other child was born on 1 September!

Sorry, that should say 8/12th of birth months. Obviously if lots of people started deferring summer kids only the non deferred would get three terms.

The comparison with Scotland also exposes another way in which the campaign is simply an attempt to shift the disadvantage on to other children.

You see, children in Scotland start school between 4.5 and 5.5. The youngest children have February birthdays. But still parents who can afford it defer their winter born children so they can be most advantaged by the rules rather than the least advantage.

If we shift things so that children born between April and August can defer with no compelling reason, then we'd simply be shifting the problem on to those children with March birthdays (and those summer born children whose parents haven't been able to defer them, mostly because they can't afford it) who happen to still be the same age or younger than any of the children expected to start school in Scotland (based on a mid-August start date in Scotland vs a n early September start date in England) and whose parents are allowed to defer them because they're too young.

However, we're told that this flexibility (for those privileged enough to take advantage of it) will somehow solve the problem in England.

The available terms of preschool education thing is a total red herring, and also is about stamping feet about people's perceived entitlement for their children to have a set number of terms at preschool which doesn't actually exist. Some of the children will have had nearly 5 full years of FT attendance at nursery all year round when they start at school because their parents needed the childcare.

In contrast, campaigning to make reception (and years 1 and 2 for that matter) more suitable for all young children would improve things for everyone. Focusing on the system serving the children that attend rather than trying to mould children to an inappropriate system would reduce (and could actually eliminate) the number of people who genuinely needed to defer a school place, simply because the school system could actually meet their needs.

Three new Local Authority primary schools are opening up around where I live. How come they are not being forced to be Free Schools, I wonder? (that wouldn't work, because nobody wants to do it and the places just wouldn't be there for the thousands of new kids moving into the new housing developments).

Here's a blog post I wrote on why I wish we'd never accepted the primary school place we were offered last year. What happens when your dream primary school just isn't?

makemeanearthmother.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/what-happens-when-your-dream-primary.html

Sounds like the school was fab tho until 5/6 staff left.

TeWi

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.

I really don't understand why you would actively fight against a campaign that is trying to stop children missing a whole year of their education? This is a heart breaking situation for so many children. Can you imagine how a child feels to be taken out of their class, away from all their friends to join a new class who will not only have formed friendships but also have the advantage of a whole year's education. This not only has a huge impact on a child academically but more so effects a child emotionally. This child will often wonder what is 'wrong with them', why they've been forced to leave their friends and why they are now in a class learning about things they know nothing about!

This, more often than not results in misdiagnosis of SEN; resulting in more of the teachers time taken away from let's say...children not born in the summer because they are spending time offering extra support to those summer borns who perhaps wouldn't have needed it if they weren't made to miss a year. This has a negative impact on non summer borns too.

You actively want to campaign for this to happen?! Wow!

This isn't about 'sharpening our elbows' our trying to make our children the 'sharpest and cleverest kids' it's making sure we don't make them go through what I've described above. It's about not making them miss a year (at any point) It's about a point in law, compulsory school age.

Again, missing the point many of us have summer borns.

And who was the child feeling sad at my son's nursery because all his friends had left? That's right, the September born one who was there another year.

Whatever system is devised will advantage some children and disadvantage others. Do you agree?

I agree the current education system overall as it stands will advantage some children and disadvantage others but that's a different campaign and a whole other issue i.e a later formal school starting age

While this is happening in the background (toomuchtoosoon campaign) we have to also campaign against the CURRENT admissions system. The current system makes summer born children miss a year of education (at any point) and that has to stop. That's what the summer born campaign is aiming to stop.

If...I mean when the summer born campaign is successful I think this will be a stepping stone for ALL children. The government will begin to see how this has significant improvements for summer borns and will perhaps realise that a later school start for ALL children would be beneficial, perhaps...but in the meantime we have to 'fight' against what we've got and it is in no childs interests to make them miss a year of school.

Your summer born is not made to miss a year of school, you can start them in September at 4 and get the whole year.

Why is a child being forced out of a class into a new class without their friends and being made to learn things they know nothing about? I don't understand how or when this is happening?

This, more often than not results in misdiagnosis of SEN; resulting in more of the teachers time taken away from let's say...children not born in the summer because they are spending time offering extra support to those summer borns who perhaps wouldn't have needed it if they weren't made to miss a year. This has a negative impact on non summer borns too.

By your own definition, the children more likely to be diagnosed with SEN (and it's important to remember it was a comparison against September and not the year as a whole) hadn't been made to miss a year of school. They were comparing children starting school at different ages.

So just because other children may be less fortunate we should not seek what is best for our own children? We each have to do what we believe is best for our children within our ability, or we will have failed in our duty as parents. There exists a compulsory school age ( ie term after they turn 5 - still too young imo) so why are children who are not ready a year early at age 4 either forced to start early or miss a year of essential education? It is appalling and the system is a shambles and a disgrace.

So just because other children may be less fortunate we should not seek what is best for our own children? We each have to do what we believe is best for our children within our ability, or we will have failed in our duty as parents.

It is utterly normal to seek to do the best for your child, even if it makes life just that little bit worse for other children.

There is a reason public policy isn't made on that basis.

The evidence shows starting education early is not beneficial. The best systems with the best outcomes (such as Finland, and others) all start school aged 6 or 7. What is the rush? Let them grow and play for a while longer and so many more will achieve so much more later in life.

The evidence shows starting education early is not beneficial. The best systems with the best outcomes (such as Finland, and others) all start school aged 6 or 7. What is the rush? Let them grow and play for a while longer and so many more will achieve so much more later in life.

Have you read the thread? I'm not sure I've seen a single poster disagree with delaying the most formal learning. It's the nimby solution that it is criticised.

I don't live in the UK any more. I think I prefer the school system here, it certainly seems less stressful for the parents!

Formal school starts at age 6, everyone automatically has a place at their "catchment" school - though you can make an application to go to a different school if you want. I don't know who makes the decision as to whether you can or not. We didn't even have to register - the school sent us a letter saying DD was due to start that September.

It is not that unusual here for children to be held back a year before starting, particularly if they are young for their year. I think you just need a letter from your doctor, maybe from the Kindergarten. There is a bit of crossover too - children born in certain months can go to school a year early if they are ready. I think that's a good system too.

I really like that DD can walk to school with her friends, and they all live locally, and she knew a fair few of the children already from going to Kindergarten with them. I think it makes the school more a part of the local community.

I suppose we have less "choice" than in the UK - we aren't allowed to home educate either. And there is nothing like Ofsted rating individual schools. Our school seems good to me, but I don't have anything to compare it to. I don't actually mind having less choice, it seems a lot fairer somehow, and there isn't the angst over getting into a good school that there seems to be in the UK. I do see that it would be harder to have a system automatic catchment schools in the UK, because so many schools are faith schools.

There aren't faith schools here as such, however church and school do seem more linked than in the UK. DC are taught religion seperately according to whether they are protestant or catholic; children of other faiths are allowed to go home early or come in late.
There are (non-compulsory) ecumenical school church services at various points in the year. As a christian family, we like this, but I can see that atheist families or those of other faiths might be less happy with it.

As I understand it this is just a step towards the ultimate outcome, which is something other than what we currently have. Ultimately the goal is for a change to the system. Why do you think attacking the summerborn campaign will help with that? At least they are campaigning for change which may allow even further change in future.

I have explained quite a few times. Put simply, I don't think it fixes the problem. I don't think it's a good first step. I think it makes it worse and I think it's socially regressive because it will most affect the poorest in society. There are loads of posts on this thread - including very good ones by Tiggy explaining that.

Sigh, Jenny.

Some people agree with the campaign and some do not. That's not attack, it's discussion.

Once the principle of a spread of ages of 17m is established and widespread, why would a natural next step be a reduction in this spread to 12m and everyone starting between 5.5 and 6.5 or whatever?

1. the starting at age 6/7 was actually not meant as a respinse to these comments (slip of finger on mobile phone)
2. talking hypothetically about something is one thing, but when there are children currently suffering because of current status quo and that child is yours, any attempt to disuade anyone from achieving a better outcome for their child / challenging the part of the system they feel can be changed in the short term, will feel like an attack
3. a natural next step would not be a shift in admission policy according to new hard line dates, but rather a more flexible approach to providing what is best for each individual child irrespective of when they were born, to allow every child to reach their full potential.

Education as an alternative to child care is sad, but I understand the current issues associated with cost and some parents don't have a choice. The current system should change to allow more choice, that is something the summerborn campaign is asking for- more choice. That is a first step in getting more choice across the board for everyone imo.

Also just wondering why it is necessary to sigh younicscrewdriver when it is a discussion of opinions? What are you trying to say exactly by adding a 'sigh'?
So difficult to ascertain intentions in discussions which are not face to face.

I'm sighing because you have decided that a conversation is an attack.

I have one child that would be advantaged by such a change and one disadvantaged. So should I see your campaign as an attack on the latter? Or is that pretty unhelpful?

The sensible thing to do would be to make sure provision at age 4 is suitable for all of those aged 4 (with the acknowledgement that children of age 4 vary hugely in maturity and ability and this is fine and catered for).

I don't know if things have changed enormously in the last few years but this seemed to be exactly what was the case at DD's school when she started in Reception a few years ago. The vast majority of the time appeared to be child-led exploration and small groups working on practical tasks with only very short sessions of sitting and listening etc. Her academic peers now in Y3 are a mixture of children born at all points in the year.

And all this talk of summerborn children missing a year of education - isn't that precisely what everyone starting at the start of the academic year was supposed to prevent? Those summerborn children who miss out on Reception are doing so at the request of their parents and it is very very few of them indeed (generally it seems to be those with additional needs that mean the child would always struggle to keep up with peers, not temporary lack of maturity which is for most children likely to even out as they grow). I'm afraid I cannot see 'missing' a few terms of preschool as missing a year of education. DD had three terms of preschool and it was more than enough in terms of preparing her for what school might be like (being part of a group, following instructions, relating to peers - there certainly wasn't any formal education).