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.

karen not really.....certainly I will admit that I don't actually know what the catholic stance on smoking is (although suicide is a sin isn't it?). Nothing anyone can say would make me believe it isn't very judgemental though, and surely belief in the Holy Ghost is essential?

a few years ago, we lived out of London and dd1 got in to the local school with no trouble.

now we are in London, our nearest school is CofE with strict criteria (3 years of church for 90% of children) and several other nearby schools have similar criteria. But we are not CofE and not prepared to pretend either. So our school options are substantially restricted.

I think the best fix would be removing all faith admissions criteria (see fairadmissions.org.uk/ ). It just doesn't make sense to discriminate between children on the basis of what their parents do on a Sunday.

I don't have any issue with parents who choose faith schools; I went to a Catholic school (I'm well and truely lapsed now!). The schools are there so of course they can choose to use them. Nor am I blind to the fact that by choosing a private school for my DC I am engaging in economic selection, so I am not in a position to judge others.

My issue is that State Funded services should be available to all; with allocation based on limited non-discriminationatory fair criteria. It is the system that is the problem not the individuals using it.

Holy Spirit- God. Ghosts- apparition of a dead soul. Catholics believe in the former, not the latter

Strict Catholics will avoid drinking and smoking as will Muslims, most certainly won't waste their time being judgemental if not do it themselves. Suicide is technically a sin, but in this day and age most churches would support any individual and their family and friends touched by suicide, the whole point of religion after all is to bring people together and offer them comfort in difficult times. I'm not aware of any food I can't eat as a Catholic. To my knowledge being Catholic doesn't make me particularly more judgemental than the non Catholic population, either.

MNHQ - can you raise the issue of the unfair allocation of primary school places for summer born children please?
Parents of summer born children have to undergo an entirely different and complex application process to other parents (DfE advice says they should apply one whole year earlier than the year they wish their child to start school), and their children are not guaranteed Reception class entry - or indeed a full 7 years of primary school education (DfE has confirmed both of these to be true).

The only way these parents are guaranteed the same educational experience for their children as all other children is if they agree to enrol their child in school EARLY - i.e. before the child reaches compulsory school age (CSAge). If they seek to enrol their child AT CSAge, they must seek permission one year early from their local council and all head teachers of the schools they are considering applying to.

If they are LUCKY, and the some schools and/or the council agrees to Reception class entry at CSAge, the parent can ONLY list those schools with head teacher agreement on their application form. This adds another layer of criteria that no other child is subject to - i.e. if the head teacher wants to insist on a Year 1 entry at CSAge, the parent cannot list that school on their standard primary school entry application form. Their statutory preferences are limited.

Some councils are even sending educational psychologists out to 'assess' 3 year-old summer born children to see if they 'need' to wait until CSAge before starting school - even though this decision is legally the parent's. The stress, worry and uncertainty is immense for these parents, and they're having to fight for what is an automatic right for every other child - Reception class entry at CSAge and no threat of being made to leapfrog a year at any point later on, simply in order to be educated in the 'correct' 12 month chronological age 'batch'.
Please see the website summerbornchildren.org for more information - Labour MP Stephen Twigg and (now retired Liberal Democrat MP) Annette Brooke have both categorically said summer born children's primary school application should be treated equitably.

The current situation is wasting tax-payers' money (NHS, Education and Councils), and we see councils who would rather pay for additional SEN 'support' in a forced Year 1 start than simply allow a summer born child to enter Reception class and be significantly less likely to need any SEN support throughout the whole of their education. It's an unfair and illogical DfE policy that could so easily be fixed with a School Admissions Code update. The best interests of children and their parents should come before the views of school and council administrators.

We live in an area that once LAC and statemented children have been considered admits on:
In catchment with a sibling at the school
In catchment
Out of catchment with a sibling at the school
Out of catchment

Which seems to me to be reasonable.

The system of preference falls down when the schools aren't able to grow according to demand. This government hasn't allowed LAs to build new schools but have forced them to let developers build new houses. One school near us was built to cope with a village that has expanded to double its size with no increase in school places. Next week is going to cause mayhem amongst parents there. I know of other parents who have moved out of catchment and believe they'll get sibling priority but I think they'll be shocked on Thursday.

"The only way these parents are guaranteed the same educational experience for their children as all other children is if they agree to enrol their child in school EARLY - i.e. before the child reaches compulsory school age (CSAge). "

Whilst I agree that there is an issue with summer borns PMHull, the way you are phrasing this is rather skewed. Almost all children start school before CSAge, or the classes would be empty in September. Your point is simply that summer borns have to start a greater amount before CSAge to be in normal application processes.

Parents of summer borns don't have to do a different application process. They have to do a different application process if they want their child to start at CSAge. The difference is that Autumn born children can start at CSAge without separate applications.

(I'm speaking as a parent of summer kids, BTW).

As a parent of a summer born child (due to start this September) I personally wouldn't consider holding her back.
There has to be a cut off date somewhere, if children were starting all different times of the year or schools were having to hold spaces open for a year it would cause mayhem.
I understand parents feeling uneasy, especially with August born babies but by the end of reception, all of the children tend to more or less catch up with each other.

My understanding is that it isn't 'holding them back'. Summer born children who start days or weeks after they turn 4 are actually starting school EARLY. Yes the majority of children do start early, but how early is the question.

Compulsory school age is the term after a child turns 5. It is parental choice to decide whether to start a child at CSA or before. That isn't the question. The question is whether it is appropriate for a child who starts school at CSA (a parental right if they wish) to start in year 1 (rather than reception)?

And if you read the IFS report, there are still marked differences at 16. We have one of the youngest starting ages in the world. We are making it even younger by starting them at 'newly four' (rather than the 5 of CSA).

And what is being asked for is flexibility. For those where a child is ready, to start early, at 4. But for those who feel their child isn't developmentally/behaviourally/academically ready to start at 4, the option to start at 5, in reception. Many countries have a much more flexible system than ours (and manage it successfully).
Sorry, rant over :)

SweetiexPie it wouldn't cause mayhem. In many countries, it's an option. Not just for the youngest in the year but the entire cohort is given the option of starting later if their parents feel it is the child's best interest. Australia has a system where it works, Scotland does also. There's many systems that we could take advice from.

There's mounting evidence that summerborns struggle, not just academically but emotionally and mentally. Given the evidence, I am very keen for my son to start school on time, rather than early. He's not CSAge until the September after he is given the option to start, but doing so is proving a battle on all fronts.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom

You are absolutely correct that the majority of children start school earlier than CSAge, and this is partly to do with the fact that both the IFS and Rose Review found that children who missed just one term of secondary school were disadvantaged compared to those who experienced the full year.

Indeed a whole campaign exists (Too Much Too Soon) that addresses the formal education that starts in Reception classes, which can add pressure on some parents to enrol their child in school earlier than they might like - so that they don't 'miss out' on this 'crucial' and 'critical' foundation year (DfE's words in brackets).

I maintain that parents of summer born parents DO have to endure a different application process however; no other parents must apply one year early for a school place they don't want, and their list of preferences are not limited by whether a school will accept their CSAge child into Reception class.

Another example - parents of autumn born children are not told their child must be 'assessed' if they decide to enter school at CSAge (i.e. January start of second term of Reception), and a decision made as to whether they should skip Reception class entirely and go straight into Year 1.

I understand that culturally we are so used to children starting school early that parents of summer born children who wish to wait until CSAge are seen as 'delaying' their child's entry, and discussion tends to focus on whether or not they should do this, but the reality is we have primary legislation that wholly supports this choice, and it is the DfE's Code that has muddied the waters unnecessarily.

I would also point out that wherever people stand on this issue, all parents need to be aware that the current system is having a detrimental effect on ALL children and all school places - because we are now seeing increasing numbers of cases where parents of summer born children forced to enter Reception at age 4 are requesting, and being granted, a repeated Reception year. This effectively means a school place was lost to another child during the first Reception year:
summerbornchildren.org/2015/03/27/cost-of-dfes-code-continues-repeating-reception-is-the-latest-summer-born-sticking-plaster/

Summer Born Children in England:

Summer born children should be taken out of paragraph 2.17 of the School Admissions Code.

The legal meanings of 'reception class' and 'relevant age group' contained within the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (section 142), 'compulsory school age' contained within the Education Act 1996 and the 'prescribed day' (s) contained within The Education (Start of Compulsory School Age) Order 1998 all appear to support a reception class start at compulsory school age for summer born children.

However, currently, if parents of a summer born child wish their child to start school in reception class at Compulsory School Age, they can only 'request' this, as the outgoing government legislated (it would appear retrospectively, since previously to this summer born children being classified as 'outside their normal age group' first appeared in non-statutory advice in 2013) that these children are 'outside their normal age group' within the December 2014 School Admissions Code, despite the legal meanings above in primary legislation.
Parents of summer born children wishing their child to start in reception class AT compulsory school age and not before experience great difficulty, as a direct result of the outgoing governments School Admissions Code and it's subjective nature and deference to localism in these cases. This has resulted in threatened and actual loss of access to reception class and therefore preferred schools. Even when a parent is 'successful' in their request, there are no procedural or legislative guarantees in place to ensure that the child will not be forced to leapfrog a year at any point - this has happened and the Department for Education is aware that this has happened.

You will be able to see from written evidence we submitted to the Education Select Committee that the evidence that the Department for Education supplied to the Committee to back up their summer born policy doesn't actually do this and that there are huge inconsistencies coming out of the DfE on this (examples in the Appendix of Summer Born Campaign written evidence).

Department for Education policy and evidence - www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Education/evidence-check-forum/summer-born-children.pdf
Summer Born Campaign written evidence - data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/education-committee/evidence-check-starting-school/written/18267.html

This isn't 'holding back', it is starting on time - at the statutory school age. Not aware of any other country that penalises its children for starting at statutory school age. The government should be ashamed of themselves.

Actually, for those who have cited Scotland, I was speaking recently to a teacher in Scotland who thinks it's an awful system.

They have something like a 15month age spread across a school year. And it tends to be the educated, affluent parents who decide to defer entry. So it tends to be the least advantaged of the cohort who start at the youngest age.

I don't disagree that we start very young. I totally see that there is an issue for many summer borns. I am not sure picking and choosing when children start is the answer. I would prefer formal education to start later for all children.

ACTION NEEDED
I found the whole process very stressful. My twin boys were born 3 months prem in Aug 2010. They were due to start reception last Sept, but we as parents felt they weren't ready. Their GP, HV and nursery agreed with us and we applied for a delay. Our chosen school didn't support us saying that the computer system wouldn't be able take my boys' details as they were born in the wrong year. However the CSA in this country is 5 and no child should be forced to start school before this age. Many LAs up and down the country are making the school application process a very difficult and unfair one. There're government guidelines that gives parents of summer born/ premature children the choice to delay their school years. However, many parents are forced to provide endeless evidence and spend thousands on specilists such psycologists, speech therapists and solicitors.
After nearly 2 years we finally had the news we wanted and my twins will start recep in Sept at 5 years old. Still, if we change county or the headteacher changes, it could all change! Also, during their school year they may be made to skip a year at any time, meaning they may not have access to same number of years of education as other children.
Not all parents of summer born/prem children will ask for a delay. It's an individual choice as all children develop at different rates. Parents know their children best, don't we?

Echoing PMHull, we have been told to apply this year for a place that we have no intention of taking by our Local Authority. I also expect that we will get into a school that I know is generally oversubscribed and very much desirable to a lot of people, yet my son is likely going to be given a place that we will reject pretty swiftly after offered.

Totally agree with the need for action on summer born children - or in fact any children that would benefit from starting at a different time to that deemed best by the government.

We would generally have better outcomes if schooling was matched to kids rather than the other way around!

yes, yes, different process for summer borns (although too late for my mid August teen who is about to finish school) as I have always felt that she is up to a year behind (emotionally and developmentally if not academically) her peers.

Also, I agree to a restricted catchment area for siblings at primary school but I think that sibling priority at secondary should be removed with distance being the main criteria following SEN and looked after children. Secondary school children are more than able to travel to school on their own in most cases.

I know someone who 'cheated' their way into the most 'desirable' secondary school in our area and then her two younger got in as siblings even though her eldest was not entitled to a place in the first instance. Genuinely, not hearsay.

There should be the optionfor summer-born children to start receptn at age 5. People who want their summer-born DC to start at 4 can already do so.

The current arrangements for admissions "out of year group" put families in a very difficult, stressful position.

Admission authorities don't have to take a decision within particular timescales. Demand "evidence", which health professionals are under no obligation to provide as they are not education experts. Choice between accepting a place in the "normal" intake for reception or taking the chance of seeking a start in reception a year later, being declined, then offered a place in year 1 (thus missing reception) wherever there is space. Or, if lucky and allowed to start reception at age 5, DC being made to skip a full year's education later on to bring them back to the "correct" year group. No right of appeal in any of this.

The ever increasing focus on targets will make things especially hard for summer-born DC like mine who have SN in addition.

Plenty of schools already teach DC with large age-ranges: my local school has mixed-age classes anyway, with 2-year age gaps.

As for lower-income families not using the flexibility in Scotland, the reasons for and impact on DC of that should be investigated.

Don't see why you're not auto allocated place at closest catchment school then you can reject and apply to others knowing you have a place per se

Changing - because admission numbers in highly populated areas would change widely and unpredictability. And schools couldn't offer places to out of catchment kids with no idea how many of the catchment kids might not take a place up.

This is interesting:

My experience in RL is basically that people who got the school they want think the admissions criteria is fair; those who didn't think it's unfair and wish to change it to a system that remarkable would just happen to give their dc admission. of course that's not why they think it's fairer, oh no...

I think it generally is fair, except I think there should be a limit in how far someone can move and still count as sibling link. And councils should follow up fraud applications.

If they could do it it would be good if they could produce an app. for when you are doing an online application that either gives you an idea (with disclaimers) of which schools you would have got into in the previous years, so people could potentially choose their last choice to be the best of those. Or even come up with a warning if you are unlikely to get any of their options.

One of the issues to me is the myths that people perpetuate-like if you only put down one school you must get that... "it worked for me...". Thus encouraging others to make poor choices. Very difficult to stop that. I've spoken to some very intelligent individuals who assert that "a governor promised I would get in" or "If I list this one (with catchment area 20m and I live 5 miles away) I will definitely get in, X said so" or similar rubbish.

For those singing the praises of the Scottish system, I find this interesting because I know several people who have had numerous issues with that system in other ways. I definitely don't think it's better overall. In fact my cousins had such a time at first school entry that my uncle deliberately chose to take a job in England before secondary school entry.

I'm also finding it very interesting that the assumption of faith schools is that the people only want the school really because it's good. So we're assuming all faith schools are good/outstanding?
Interesting. In my parents' area there's a failing Catholic (secondary, almost no Catholic primaries) school. Been failing for many years on and off, they always do enough to scrape through and then drift back again.
But, you know what, the Catholics still overwhelmingly choose to send their children there despite living much closer (and would easily get in) to the good comprehensives. So it is that they want the catholic education not that they are merely sweeping up the good schools.

I've referenced a failing Catholic school too Dee.

Unfortunately, our LA does not allocate places in what I would consider a fair process. I would not like my dd (who turns 3 in June) to start school almost a year before she reaches CSAge, but it means we will have no chance to get into any of our local oversubscribed schools unless pigs fly and we are successful at that circus of a process that is called deceleration. Thank god, home education is an option.